Spurs could play some home games at Amex for a season....

BUTTERBALL

East Stand Brighton Boyz

Jul 31, 2003

10,255

location location

• Jul 2, 2014

• #1

.....is this a load of BS or what? From the Standard today:

http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/tottenham-could-play-home-games-at-ipswich-or-brighton-while-new-stadium-is-being-built--as-spurs-rule-out-white-hart-lane-stay-9578497.html

 

Last edited: Jul 2, 2014

seagullsovergrimsby

#cpfctinpotclub

Aug 21, 2005

43,690

Crap Town

• Jul 2, 2014

• #2

Could be a nice little earner , Paul Barber to be the lynchpin in negotiations ?

 

Triggaaar

Well-known member

Oct 24, 2005

50,200

Goldstone

• Jul 2, 2014

• #3

Planning permission?

 

Hillian1

( . ) ( . )

Jul 15, 2010

15,364

Struggling for breath at the top of the stairs

• Jul 2, 2014

• #4

Awaits the oh so funny posts from Palace fans about supporting a premier team 1st and Brighton 2nd.

 

R

Rogero

Well-known member

Aug 4, 2010

5,714

Shoreham

• Jul 2, 2014

• #5

Blimey,I very much doubt it. There must be a stadium much nearer.

 

sparkie

Well-known member

Jul 17, 2003

12,506

Hove

• Jul 2, 2014

• #6

Can't see the council allowing it.

 

Curious Orange

Punxsatawney Phil

Jul 5, 2003

9,957

On NSC for over two decades...

• Jul 2, 2014

• #7

What Triggaaar said - if Spurs want to share they can pay the planning costs of getting the limit on the number of games lifted themselves.

 

Worthingite

Sexy Pete... :D

Sep 16, 2011

4,959

Worthing

• Jul 2, 2014

• #8

Would an easier alternative of sharing with Arsenal for a season and sucking it up not be feasible? It works for Inter/AC milan and Lazio/Roma and it would only be for one season.

 

C

Cian

Well-known member

Jul 16, 2003

14,262

Dublin, Ireland

• Jul 2, 2014

• #9

I'm pretty certain the planning permission allows a conventional season of home games for one club (e.g. 23+cups+friendlies+possible euros - I can't remember the actual figure allowed), but not enough for groundsharing.

 

Triggaaar

Well-known member

Oct 24, 2005

50,200

Goldstone

• Jul 2, 2014

• #10

Curious Orange said:

What Trigger said

Click to expand...

I'd make that my signature if you could ****ing spell!

 

seagullsovergrimsby

#cpfctinpotclub

Aug 21, 2005

43,690

Crap Town

• Jul 2, 2014

• #11

Curious Orange said:

What Trigger said - if Spurs want to share they can pay the planning costs of getting the limit on the number of games lifted themselves.

Click to expand...

I think this goes without saying. It would only be a temporary measure for one season.

 

sparkie

Well-known member

Jul 17, 2003

12,506

Hove

• Jul 2, 2014

• #12

Actually the article doesn't say a full ground share. Some games at Wembley and others elsewhere, so maybe just a handful at the AMEX

 

Curious Orange

Punxsatawney Phil

Jul 5, 2003

9,957

On NSC for over two decades...

• Jul 2, 2014

• #13

Triggaaar said:

I'd make that my signature if you could ****ing spell!

Click to expand...

I've been having trouble with my consonants today - I blame it on too much time daydreaming wistfully about Rachel Riley...

 

BUTTERBALL

East Stand Brighton Boyz

Jul 31, 2003

10,255

location location

• Jul 2, 2014

• Thread starter
• #14

sparkie said:

Actually the article doesn't say a full ground share. Some games at Wembley and others elsewhere, so maybe just a handful at the AMEX

Click to expand...

You are correct. Title edited

 

J

Joe Gatting's Dad

New member

Feb 10, 2007

1,880

Way out west

• Jul 2, 2014

• #15

Surely, the Olympic Stadium is the obvious one - sharing the rent of £2Mp.a. with West Ham as Orient will never play there.

 

A

Aristotle

Active member

Mar 18, 2008

604

Edinburgh

• Jul 2, 2014

• #16

It does say in the article that they might play some games at Wembley, and some in the another stadium (or perhaps more). If it was a case of hosting say 5 games in a season, it might work and be worth it?

 

F

Frampler

New member

Aug 25, 2011

239

Eastbourne

• Jul 2, 2014

• #17

Utter, utter contempt for their fans if they go outside of London. Wembley is the obvious option, as it's only about 12 miles away and has no club tenant. The Olympic Stadium, if open in time, could clearly use the extra income to avoid being such a burden on the public purse, and is even nearer to Tottenham. Failing that, why not approach the RFU and see if Twickenham is available?

I suppose Arsenal would be unwilling to share the Emirates for a year because the Spurs fans would take their seats home after every game!

 

surrey jim

Not in Surrey

Aug 2, 2005

18,094

Bevendean

• Jul 2, 2014

• #18

Wembley would be the obvious choice. 50,000 seater, Some money in the FA coffers and not too far from where they are currently (compared to Ipswich/Brighton)

 

deletebeepbeepbeep

Well-known member

May 12, 2009

20,959

• Jul 2, 2014

• #19

The stadium can hold up to 50 outdoor events a year including 2 music concerts.

So 23 league matches plus a potential of 7 cup matches and 2 music concerts makes 32? So there would be 17 approximately remaining but then you would probably have to detract the 'tool shows' etc if they have large audiences and are held outside? Then there's the RWC games enxt year.

 

Gullflyinghigh

Registered User

Apr 23, 2012

4,279

• Jul 2, 2014

• #20

Frampler said:

Utter, utter contempt for their fans if they go outside of London. Wembley is the obvious option, as it's only about 12 miles away and has no club tenant. The Olympic Stadium, if open in time, could clearly use the extra income to avoid being such a burden on the public purse, and is even nearer to Tottenham. Failing that, why not approach the RFU and see if Twickenham is available?

I suppose Arsenal would be unwilling to share the Emirates for a year because the Spurs fans would take their seats home after every game!

Click to expand...

Why would you have contempt for the fans? I very much doubt they'll have say in where they'd be playing.