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.
Then Spurs should appoint Big Sam as manager for that season, as then the ball will never be on the turf anyway!
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.
We should offer to host them, expand the south stand, fill in the corners to bring the capacity up to 37k (if i understand the existing plans correctly) and use the extra income to offset the cost
Charlton will be playing in a 50k new stadium on the greenwhich peninsula by then bet they forget about arsenal coming from Woolwich then when they want to share
The most sensible option would be an Emirates stadium share but it'll never happen. Is Twickenham unrealistic?
Wrong side of London, would be fine (location wise) for Chelsea if they needed a temporary ground, though I doubt the RFU would be interested, and the 6 nations and autumn internationals would take priority anyway
I note the interesting caveat that Wembley is limited to 37 events a year. Basically rules out Spurs being able to use it as a anchor home ground as they will not be able to complete a league season in it, let alone any cup competitions or friendlies. I wonder if other stadia have similar restrictions? I imagine local bobbies would need to be consulted as well regarding a groundshare between two Premier League clubs (although since all London clubs share the same police force, this shouldn't be an issue).
MK Dons may like the money but I can see them losing some fans once Milton Keynsians get a taste of Premier League football.
Really though, the only reason I can see West Ham vetoing it is sour grapes, which is completely feasible. Maybe they could negotiate a lower rent for that season to compensate for having to groundshare?
Either way it will be an interesting season for Tottenham - either having to share with a rival/enemy or having to groundhop between Milton Keynes and a London stadium for their biggest fixtures.
Comments
I note the interesting caveat that Wembley is limited to 37 events a year. Basically rules out Spurs being able to use it as a anchor home ground as they will not be able to complete a league season in it, let alone any cup competitions or friendlies. I wonder if other stadia have similar restrictions? I imagine local bobbies would need to be consulted as well regarding a groundshare between two Premier League clubs (although since all London clubs share the same police force, this shouldn't be an issue).
MK Dons may like the money but I can see them losing some fans once Milton Keynsians get a taste of Premier League football.
Really though, the only reason I can see West Ham vetoing it is sour grapes, which is completely feasible. Maybe they could negotiate a lower rent for that season to compensate for having to groundshare?
Either way it will be an interesting season for Tottenham - either having to share with a rival/enemy or having to groundhop between Milton Keynes and a London stadium for their biggest fixtures.