Ricky1985 wrote:

I really feel like it's win-win for us.

On the one hand they might get the decision go their way, they might even end up with a better team after a while and maybe even a few more trophies (wouldn't be hard), but the cost it would come at would just not be worth it, not even close. They'd have to lose everything they are, and they'd lose fans without doubt. Some might even keep going, but it would never be the same. You can't just create history or give a club a soul - and if they move to a completely different part of London, change their name, that's exactly what they are doing; ripping the soul out of the club. Which would be great and just fine by me.

The great part is if they don't win, they start down the tortuous road of trying to build a new stadium. In a shit hole of an area, that can't really handle a new stadium of that size and all it entails. It's just great. I want them to win the decision though. In the short term it might even mean they're more threatening, but long term it will mean the slow death of the club.

Genuine question, but do you think we lost our soul by moving out of highbury, getting our stadium sponsored, changing our crest? Even before that we moved to a different part of London and changed our name a couple of times.

There is a difference between moving in early history and doing it after 100 years. It's like comparing dumping a girl after 1 date with getting divorced after 30 years.

There also a difference between moving a couple of yards to the left from Highbury to the Emirates, and moving from North to East London. It's like comparing moving into a new room in the same house to moving to Australia.

There is certainly a big difference between changing your clubs name, and sponsering your stadium. It's like... too tired to think of anything, but you see where I'm going with this.

Spurs are going nowhere. They just want to scare their town council into taking drastic measures and allowing them to refurb White Hart Lane a la Old Trafford

I thought there was legislation against major moves like this after Wimbledon moved to Milton Keynes?

Tottenham to Stratford is only a few miles. Wimbledon to MK is about 50.

I know it's obviously a big difference for the fans, but it might be enough to get around any legislation (though I don't know if there is any).

Been thinking about this situation quite a bit lately, and i've basically concluded that it's a complete farce on the part of London's olympic committee, Newham's Council, West Ham, and most of all Spurs.

First and foremost, what in the hell were they thinking when they proposed an athletics legacy? Seriously? As a former distance runner, I would care less if my hometown hosted the olympics and we ended up with a massive stadium to host athletics events once every two years.

Second of all, Newham council are an absolute farce. I'm obviously not a West Ham supporter, but I do realize what teams mean to clubs. If West Ham move to stratford, they're no longer west ham united. At the end of the day moving to a stadium even a few miles from the original ground is completely uprooting the club. The council doesn't understand this, and only sees the potential revenue that stratford and its environs will generate when West Ham moves. Moreover, money is leaving one of the more deprived parts of London.

And what in the hell is West Ham thinking? You don't have to look any further than Italy to see what happens when put a football club in a massive stadium with a running track. They'll be playing in front of quarter-empty crowds. How in the hell does the club expect this move to increase its fanbase? Who's going to want to see a game there?

Spurs are the worst of the lot though. Not only do they cease to be that North London club that they pride themselves on being, they become just another club whose interests are exclusively fixated on the bottom line. Supporters are no longer supporters; they're merely units that draw income into the club. And say what you want about how inbred Spurs fans are, they've got one of the more dedicated fanbases in the country.

I think the biggest loser in this whole debacle is English football, which we're obviously an integral part of. It signals how money is literally the only thing on the minds of club owners. As a supporter, I feel like i'm part of something bigger, and I'd expect my club to realize that(even I think our club could give a fuck less about the fans). This is a highly symbolic move that demonstrates how far the sport has come over the last twenty years. Football clubs are no longer sets of fanbases looking to congregate on something we all have in common; they're mechanisms that wealthy people use to extract profits out of a large group of individuals.

The premier league is cashing in on the money as well.

But WHU aren't really going to uproot from their community as they're already in Newham. That's West Ham territory. If Spurs moved to Edmonton or Northumberland Park (even lower Hertfordshire) it would be the same thing for me, still yid territory. The community is bigger than a little square patch of London. West Ham's stadium is in Upton Park anyway, not West Ham. Arsenal were lucky that we moved literally only up the road but if we moved anywhere in Islington I wouldn't really care, as long as it's in Islington. If it's uprooting to move just 3 miles then you might as well not move stadium at all. That's unrealistic.

The stadium was only a temporary structure anyway. It was not for permanent use as it will be when the Olympics are hosted so they needed a buyer to redevelop it. WHU and Spurs have taken up the bid.

And money makes the world go round. It's always been like that. That much is obvious for whoever lives in it.

Given how critical the British media has been about the legacy of sporting facilities at Olympics and World Cups in Greece, Qatar, Russia and South Africa, I find it strange that this situation has been allowed to evolve.

I live in the US where most stadiums aren't really rooted in the community. The only 2 stadiums that I think would be hard to relocate are Fenway Park (Red Sox) and Wrigley Field (Chicago Cubs), both baseball arenas. The typical American team though will happily move to wherever the town council will foot part of the bill and fans will be able to commute. Would Spurs fans be so shattered by having to watch their games a few miles down the road? Sure, the community would lose in terms of local oubs going out of business, but some of that would be balanced by new pubs etc emerging at the new site. Would local fans feel like they're going to watch a different team? Interested to know especially from people familiar with the affected communities

Just heard Daniel Levy say on Sky News, that Spurs will be moving away from the White Hart Lane area, and in all likelihood, out of Tottenham altogether, regardless of whether they get the Olympic stadium or not!

Come on Olympic committee, give it to West Ham, and Tottenham could end up James' local club or something!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/olympics/london2012/8314885/West-Ham-beat-Tottenham-to-win-Olympic-Stadium-battle.html

West ham have got it apparently.

Hardly a surprise really.

There's still alot of negotiation by the sound of things (time for a few brown envelopes at a petrol station).

Bit of a dissapointment as I wanted Spurs outta the area.

Looks like they'll rebuild WHL.

Just been confirmed.

Would have been hilarious if Spurs had had to move out, but still, building a new stadium there will cost them a fortune, so every cloud....

I don't see why it's bad for Leyton Orient, what are they so upset about?

It's their turf apparantly. But to be fair most people round there just supported the bigger clubs anyway.

Hahahah, sucks to be Spurs right now.

I'm sure their fans are happy, and rightly so. Moving from North London would have been a disgusting decision, made for all the wrong reasons, but there's no denying moving to the Olympic site, and all that entails, would have been massive for them in every other measurable way.

Now they have two choices, they can build a new ground at a site which has already been called "not financially viable" by their dickhead chairman, and is also a total shit hole area, or they can look for other sites outside of North London, which, if it happened, could pull their club apart. AWESOME!

Any sites up by you Jimbo that you can let them know about?

I think this ended badly for Spurs. I'm sure they never really wanted to move far away from WHL. They probably just entered this race in the hope that it would pressure on their local council to allow them to renovate WHL or adjacent sites. Now, they've gone through the whole process with the council calling their bluff, or being disinterested, and doing nothing. They've also annoyed a lot of their fans in the process, and got mixed up in this embarrassing Olympics saga.

While on the Olympics stadium, why did the British media make such a fuss about white elephant stadia in South Africa when the UK clearly has NO CLUE when it comes to building sustainable national stadia? Wembley and this Olympic stadium are a joke.

Caligula wrote:

I think this ended badly for Spurs. I'm sure they never really wanted to move far away from WHL. They probably just entered this race in the hope that it would pressure on their local council to allow them to renovate WHL or adjacent sites. Now, they've gone through the whole process with the council calling their bluff, or being disinterested, and doing nothing. They've also annoyed a lot of their fans in the process, and got mixed up in this embarrassing Olympics saga.

I thought that at first, Cal, but I'm 100% convinced they were absolute desperate in the end, especially once they realised the financial potential of rebuilding at the shithole site in Tottenham compared to financial potential moving to the Olympic site.

They are gutted, make no mistake.