Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Tottenham to play at Stadium MK (Possibly)

paulie8290
paulie8290 Posts: 23,345
in Other Football and Sports
Wow, surely there are closer stadiums they could use, the Olympic stadium for one

I no Wembley and The Emirates have been ruled out

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2750570/Tottenham-reveal-s-highly-unlikely-club-able-new-stadium-2017.html
«1

Comments

  • AFKABartram
    AFKABartram Posts: 57,909
    also struggle to understand why MK is being seriously considered
  • paulie8290
    paulie8290 Posts: 23,345
    I think it is just because the capacity is close to Spurs
  • se9addick
    se9addick Posts: 32,085
    I would have thought the Olympic stadium (maybe too much bad blood) or Wembley would be the realistic options.
  • The Red Robin
    The Red Robin Posts: 26,163
    edited September 2014
    Why has Wembley been ruled out? - Don't answer, just clicked The Mail link. Could they share with West Ham?

    http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/sport-headlines/spurs-to-play-next-season-online-2014091190428
  • colthe3rd
    colthe3rd Posts: 8,486
    image
  • Callumcafc
    Callumcafc Posts: 63,871
    ...could Roland offer them the chance to play at the Valley?
  • JohnBoyUK
    JohnBoyUK Posts: 9,051
    AFKABartram said:

    also struggle to understand why MK is being seriously considered

    I can answer this one for you AFKA.

    I was told more than 18 months ago that a deal was already in place for us to play in MK for a season if it became necessary through building delays. There are a number of substantial links between both boardrooms to suggest its not just a red herring.

    Tbh, for us, this really isnt new news. It has been doing the rounds for the last 12 months on most Spurs boards and only now Spurs have released the official statement on the building delays because of Archway, that the journalists have been sifting through what was openly discussed all them months ago.
  • chester_conrad
    chester_conrad Posts: 738
    Callumcafc said:

    ...could Roland offer them the chance to play at the Valley?

    This was mentioned in todays Sun. Apparently though, "Charlton play in Woolwich, and given arsenals roots its not an option"

  • The Red Robin
    The Red Robin Posts: 26,163
    JohnBoyUK said:

    AFKABartram said:

    also struggle to understand why MK is being seriously considered

    I can answer this one for you AFKA.

    I was told more than 18 months ago that a deal was already in place for us to play in MK for a season if it became necessary through building delays. There are a number of substantial links between both boardrooms to suggest its not just a red herring.

    Tbh, for us, this really isnt new news. It has been doing the rounds for the last 12 months on most Spurs boards and only now Spurs have released the official statement on the building delays because of Archway, that the journalists have been sifting through what was openly discussed all them months ago.
    Have MK ever built that second tier? Will Spurs contribute to its development?
  • Fiiish
    Fiiish Posts: 7,998
    I think I know at least 30 Spurs fans and none of them live or grew up in London, they all live in the Home Counties, so Milton Keynes would be perfect for them.

    The Boleyn Ground will be empty when West Ham vacate it, but it's being bulldozed for a Safeway, an Iceland and a Greggs and I imagine they wouldn't postpone bulldozing the ground so Spurs don't have to vacate the capital.

    There are 12 other Football League grounds in the capital, not sure why they can't share one of them.

  • Sponsored links:



  • sam3110
    sam3110 Posts: 21,379
    Why can't they share with Barnet or Clapton or somewhere like Watford?
  • The Red Robin
    The Red Robin Posts: 26,163
    Fiiish said:

    I think I know at least 30 Spurs fans and none of them live or grew up in London, they all live in the Home Counties, so Milton Keynes would be perfect for them.

    The Boleyn Ground will be empty when West Ham vacate it, but it's being bulldozed for a Safeway, an Iceland and a Greggs and I imagine they wouldn't postpone bulldozing the ground so Spurs don't have to vacate the capital.

    There are 12 other Football League grounds in the capital, not sure why they can't share one of them.

    I meant sharing in West Ham's new stadium. When do they move there?
  • Dansk_Red
    Dansk_Red Posts: 5,733
    Have MK ever built that second tier? Will Spurs contribute to its development?

    They had 30k for the Man U game the other night.



  • The Red Robin
    The Red Robin Posts: 26,163
    Dansk_Red said:

    Have MK ever built that second tier? Will Spurs contribute to its development?

    They had 30k for the Man U game the other night.





    Answers my question then - thanks!
  • killerandflash
    killerandflash Posts: 70,016
    They can't share at Arsenal.
    I doubt West Ham would allow them to share the Olympic stadium
    Wembley is a possibility, but there are other events during the year there.
    Upton Park will be demolished by then
    Twickenham - wrong side of London

    Mk - 32k stadium, the largest within reasonable distance, albeit a bit far out.
    The Valley and Selhurst are about 26k/27k, Watford only 20k, even with the new stand
  • Wheresmeticket
    Wheresmeticket Posts: 17,304
    edited September 2014
    Excellent - MK Spurs! Milton Keynes will now have two football club franchises.

    Just like Manchester.
  • Brendan_O_Connell
    Brendan_O_Connell Posts: 8,938
    Actual Quote from a Spurs fan at work:

    "We should be playing at Wembley for that season as a club the size of ours will easily fill it every week"

  • Fiiish
    Fiiish Posts: 7,998
    killerandflash said:

    I doubt West Ham would allow them to share the Olympic stadium

    The thing is that it shouldn't be up to West Ham. As I understand they're only tenants and they're receiving a pretty favourable deal from the whole venture, in a stadium they will struggle to fill. If the owners got Spurs on board they could guarantee around 40,000 seats at least every week if Spurs and West Ham alternated home and away on a weekly basis (excluding the weeks where West Ham and Tottenham play each other). If the owners of the stadium don't make a move to accommodate Spurs for one season only, they're pissing money away.
  • soapy_jones
    soapy_jones Posts: 21,406
    Brendan_O_Connell said:

    Actual Quote from a Spurs fan at work:

    "We should be playing at Wembley for that season as a club the size of ours will easily fill it every week"

    Yep. Met a few of them chumps in my time.
  • Goonerhater
    Goonerhater Posts: 12,677
    lots of em like that---win a game they will win the title--world cup and the horse of the year show------------------loose a game its slit wrists and sack the manager

  • Sponsored links:



  • chester_conrad
    chester_conrad Posts: 738
    edited September 2014
    Brendan_O_Connell said:

    Actual Quote from a Spurs fan at work:

    "We should be playing at Wembley for that season as a club the size of ours will easily fill it every week"

    Clearly they could fill Wembley every home game.Thats why the new capacity at WHL is going to be 56,250.
  • c4fcdenmark
    c4fcdenmark Posts: 2,041
    What about the soon to be conference stadium near White City.
  • LouisMend
    LouisMend Posts: 5,459
    Goonerhater said:

    lots of em like that---win a game they will win the title--world cup and the horse of the year show------------------loose a game its slit wrists and sack the manager

    Horse of the year show caught me off guard there, had a good LOL
  • JohnBoyUK
    JohnBoyUK Posts: 9,051
    The Red Robin said:

    JohnBoyUK said:

    AFKABartram said:

    also struggle to understand why MK is being seriously considered

    I can answer this one for you AFKA.

    I was told more than 18 months ago that a deal was already in place for us to play in MK for a season if it became necessary through building delays. There are a number of substantial links between both boardrooms to suggest its not just a red herring.

    Tbh, for us, this really isnt new news. It has been doing the rounds for the last 12 months on most Spurs boards and only now Spurs have released the official statement on the building delays because of Archway, that the journalists have been sifting through what was openly discussed all them months ago.
    Have MK ever built that second tier? Will Spurs contribute to its development?
    The question should be have Spurs already contributed to its development...
  • se9addick
    se9addick Posts: 32,085
    The Evening Standard critiqued the other London stadium options for Tottenham, I'm not even sure where to start for how ignorant they were towards Charlton.
  • JohnBoyUK
    JohnBoyUK Posts: 9,051
    Brendan_O_Connell said:

    Actual Quote from a Spurs fan at work:

    "We should be playing at Wembley for that season as a club the size of ours will easily fill it every week"

    Well maybe he's got a point if only the bottom tier is open.

    You would have thought the FA would be willing Spurs to take on the stadium for a year. It would give them the opportunity of sending out the England team around the country on tour again, something they said last week wasnt a possibility as they still had to pay the stadium.
  • GretnaGreenAddick
    GretnaGreenAddick Posts: 3,085
    The Wembley idea would make the most business sense but feels a bit off having a league team play in our national stadium for an entire season, has that ever happened before?
  • se9addick
    se9addick Posts: 32,085
    GretnaGreenAddick said:

    The Wembley idea would make the most business sense but feels a bit off having a league team play in our national stadium for an entire season, has that ever happened before?

    Arsenal played some Champions League games there for a year or two, without much success if I remember rightly but I'm not sure if a teams played its league fixtures there though. Wouldn't bother me, what these folks in North London get up to is all a mystery to me anyway !
  • PragueAddick
    PragueAddick Posts: 22,188
    Fiiish said:

    killerandflash said:

    I doubt West Ham would allow them to share the Olympic stadium

    The thing is that it shouldn't be up to West Ham. As I understand they're only tenants and they're receiving a pretty favourable deal from the whole venture, in a stadium they will struggle to fill. If the owners got Spurs on board they could guarantee around 40,000 seats at least every week if Spurs and West Ham alternated home and away on a weekly basis (excluding the weeks where West Ham and Tottenham play each other). If the owners of the stadium don't make a move to accommodate Spurs for one season only, they're pissing money away.
    You are right.
  • All_Thaid_Up
    All_Thaid_Up Posts: 2,293
    They couldn't use wembley because of the 3 or 4 NFL games. The grass would be churned up so bad it would not be fit for football in that period which would be Sep, Oct and November.

Categories

“Marketplace”