Tottenham told by the League to forget Wembley and move into the Emirates for a season.

By Tony Attwood

On 8 July Untold ran a little piece about Tottenham and Chelsea and their plans for a new stadium, mentioning that there had been quite a bit of talk about Tottenham going to Wembley for a season.   The thought was raised in that piece, that this could be an issue if Tottenham got to the FA Cup semi-final that season and so had the pleasure of playing on neutral territory at home.

Following up on the story on 18 July the Independent published a piece in which they stated that “The Premier League will block any attempt by Tottenham to use Wembley and Milton Keynes while White Hart Lane is being redeveloped. They would also prevent Chelsea using Wembley during the three years it will take Stamford Bridge to be turned into what the Premier League champions are calling “a cathedral of football” if any fixtures are shifted from the stadium.”

Both Chelsea and Tottenham have the problem of wanting to re-develop their grounds rather than move to a new ground.   And for several years Tottenham spoke about the notion of playing one season on a three sided ground, (as Arsenal did when the north bank was made all seater) but it seems that this idea has been abandoned.  There has been mention that the health and safety logistics have made that idea impossible.

Tottenham first announced the current round of new stadium plans in 2008, but the first plans were withdrawn and a second set (which ultimately became the current plans) originated in 2010.  So we’ve been with the problem for quite a while – and still it seems there is no resolution.

Richard Scudamore, The Premier League’s executive chairman, said that any idea of a move to Wembley would be vetoed by the League, and that the most logical place for the Totts to play the 2017-18 season was at the Emirates Stadium.  Which is only logical if you take emotion out of the equation, not to mention such issues as Tottenham playing in a stadium bedecked with the details of Arsenal’s FA Cup and League titles, red and white, and overall Arsenalisation.

Most visiting supporters behave perfectly decently when going to an away match, but occasionally there are a few who do misbehave, and the temptation to doing something naughty in the Emirates during an entire season, for a very silly minority, might be too much for them to cope with.

It is true of course that Arsenal and Tottenham have shared grounds twice – once in the first world war (Highbury) and once during the second world war (WHL), and the clubs even looked at the idea of building a joint stadium at Alexander Palace in the last century.  But in both wars one of the clubs had no choice but to move, and in wartime all attitudes change.  The notion of doing such a ground share now feels to me to be impossible.

In a meeting between the board of Tottenham H. and the Tottenham Supporters Trust in April this year, Tottenham said they fancied Stadium MK.  That stadium in Milton Keynes has a capacity of 22,000 but has been built with the chance of extending the upper tiers to give it 32,000.  It is a good, modern stadium, and one built with the hope that the local club will grow in future.

Scudamore’s objection to a Wembley and MK share was slightly odd, it seems to me.  He said Tottenham, “would have to play in a single stadium for an entire year for the integrity of the competition.  You cannot have 19 home games with 10 at Milton Keynes and nine at Wembley. That is completely, completely unfair. That will not be allowed in our competition.

“They know the rules and what we require. They have to provide a stadium. We can’t have a fettered fixture list.   Clubs have to be able to deliver 19 home games in the slots that are required. So, if they share with a rugby league club, we cannot be fettered as to when they can play.

“They have to work it out with Wembley or wherever they want to play, and decide if they could deliver that level of commitment to us.”

I am not at all sure why this is so much of a problem – but I suppose with the number of games moved to meet the rapacious demands of TV, it might be that a ground wasn’t available at some time.  But if that were the case, surely Tottenham could give up its TV money for a season.

Wembley’s problem is that it already has a number of matches booked for each year – such as the aforementioned cup semi-finals, and the NFL games.   And like all venues it is licensed for a set number of events a year.  Councils are very reluctant to allow extensions for such matters because of the problem of “event creep”.  A few more games this year, and that is the reason for allowing a few more next year.

But then Arsenal’s ground has the same licensing arrangements based around 19 league home games, up to four FA Cup home games, up to six European home games, and up to four league cup home games.  Plus the very occasional women’s game and youth cup game.

Even if Wembley were to become viable there would be a problem because both Chelsea and Tottenham are looking at the prospect.  Although they might not both want it for the same season, Brent Council, and the League both know that if they give in to one, they’ll have to give in to the other.

The other possibility is the Olympic Stadium.  The problem there is that at any other time in their history WHU would have loved to have another source of income.  But having been given the Olympic Stadium for a pittance, with a rent so low it is laughable, they have no need of money, and no desire to help their local rivals at a time when they are attempting to play catch up.  Even before they were asked, they said no.  Besides which huge enmity arose when Tottenham tried its own bid for the Olympic Stadium.  WHU were said to be rather upset at that one.

Scudamore however is a simple soul.  He said, “Premier League fixtures are paired so Liverpool and Everton, Tottenham and Arsenal and Manchester United and Manchester City do not play at home on the same weekend.   So it is perfectly possible to have two teams playing in one stadium.”

According to the Independent, a poll conducted by the Tottenham Supporters Trust, moving all their home games to Wembley while the ground in Tottenham High Road is rebuilt, was the choice of the fans.  40 per cent of season ticket holders said they would only renew their season  tickets if Wembley were the sole venue.

It is a little strange that such matters are still up for grabs with a building project that has been debated in detail for seven years.  In the end they may be forced to find a way to play in a three sided stadium, for one season, as Arsenal did.  It wasn’t fun – but I guess in the end we got used to it.

The books

Woolwich Arsenal: The club that changed football – Arsenal’s early years

Making the Arsenal – how the modern Arsenal was born in 1910

The Crowd at Woolwich Arsenal

60 Replies to “Tottenham told by the League to forget Wembley and move into the Emirates for a season.”

  1. We were fortunate on two accounts we were able to build a new stadium and continue to play at Highbury. The site we built on is close by our old stadium.

    Clearly this not possible for spuds and chelski.

    You don’t mention a site in a different locality to which the two clubs now play. Is this because the clubs don’t want this and want as we have done stay in the locality they are in?

    Should spuds use the Ems? It would mean a minimum of 38 games in around 9 months. Could the ground staff maintain the quality of the pitch for this amount of use is I think this must be the first consideration and one that only the ground staff can decide.

    As a Gooner do I want to help spuds by allowing them the use of the Ems?

    I can’t make up my mind.

    As I have said the first consideration must be the pitch and I think it is the most important one.

  2. This is going to cause some BIG problems me thinks.
    What about when we play them “home” and “away”, they get to know our pitch for a full year, we will not have “home” advantage, and neither will they.
    Anyway watching Arsenal play in Asia cup, i something else came through to me, their calmness on the field came through the tv and i felt it so strongly.

    Now today Theo says, “We’ve learnt not to panic in games because there’s a lot of time for us to score goals and win a game”. This is so good.

  3. I would love to be the proverbial fly on the wall when the totts come to call!
    Good morning Daniel I understand you require use of the Emirates stadium for next season, err yes Ivan we do, three things Daniel, how much are you prepared to pay, secondly, compensation and finally two thirds of all monies agreed to be paid up front,just in case you run out of money during your rebuild. Oh and Daniel it’s Mr Gazidis to you we like our tenant relationships to be clearly defined here at Arsenal.
    I know I shouldn’t gloat but its hard not to so today I will just indulge.

  4. “The other possibility is The Olympic Stadium”
    Are you sure you didn’t mean Upton Park?
    I doubt that either of our respective boards would even bother to consider a ground share and the only other option is to slowly redevelope WHL on a three sided basis as discussed in the article.

  5. Tail Gunner. Tottenham to Upton Park – what a superb idea. Never thought of that.

    That would be one in the eye for the Tottenham board who tried to get the Olympics Stadium off WHU.

    And come to think of it. There is the Orient ground as well. They could ground share there.

    Or Barnet.

  6. @Colario,
    Agree with you entirely that the double use-age of the pitch is simply not on.
    Arsenal’s playing surface is well-known to be one of the best in the country and to have EPL games on it every week, plus Cup matches, would cause untold damage.
    Spurs should be told to look elsewhere. 😉

  7. Is there not a fairly simple solution to be found?
    Do a deal with West Ham to postpone whatever they are planning with the Boleyn Ground & let the Spuds play there at for that season, at a very extravagant fee no doubt!

  8. What about the Chickens going to Brisbane Road? The O’s could do with some cash…anyway at least we can have a few Cooper’s coming over here today and saying”you’re obsessed with Tottenham”.Yawn. Say no! to Chas and Dave being played at the Emirates!

  9. As things stand I understand Wembley is contracted to host just 3 NFL games a season at Wembley, all are held at Wembley and all on a Sunday and for 2015 on three consecutive weekends

    Wembley is only restricted to the number of events if planned attendances are over 50k. Many of the games played there at present such as the non league trophy and the Div1&2 playoffs don’t ever have attendances anywhere near 50k I addition there isn’t any requirement to have games such as the Carling Cup Final or indeed the Charity Shield at the stadium

    Whilst Spurs playing home games at your stadium being fraught with all sorts of issuesI do believe that you are still trying to get an amendment to the restrictions around numbers of events held in a year

    In theory there isn’t a problem toSpurs playing league games at say Wembley and completions not regulated by the league at another ground and if you read his comments carefully you will see he is only talking about the PL.meaning for say the FA cup, Carling cup and indeed any UEFA games at another stadium

    Put all that together and yes there may be a bit of an issue with scheduling which will need to be thought through but it’s not as if there aren’t already stadia in the current league set up where the stadium is shared so for me I wouldn’t dismiss anything at this stage for as the consultants said at the recent presentations at Chelsea when asked about Wembley ” money talks”

  10. I understand the tiny totts wanting to go to wembley, firstly to see what its like and secondly to return their long association to middlesex. To that end if wembley isnt available maybe somewhere like harrow & wealdstone would share for a season.

  11. Richard Scudamore is an ass. The man who proposed the “39th game” and thought it perfectly fair now thinks that playing home games in more than one stadium to be unfair. Where is the consistency?

    But fear not, gooners. there is no danger of Spurs using your stadium. You don’t want us to and we don’t want to. Just as it should be.

    We’ll most likely go to Milton Keynes. That’s where most of the rumours seem to be pointing. But it really ought to be the Olympic stadium. After all, we’ve all paid for it – every single, taxpaying fan in the country; and London based fans more than those elsewhere. It’s not West Ham’s concern. They wouldn’t receive a penny from Spurs. The money would go to LLDC, which owns and runs the stadium. West Ham do have a veto for the first year of their occupation of the stadium but Spurs wouldn’t need it until West Ham’s second season in residence.

    Finally, the reason why the move into a partially complete new stadium is no longer viable for Spurs is primarily that the roof design has now changed. It will be a cable net roof – and it cannot be built in stages. It has to be lifted in one go.

  12. @ TailGunner

    Upton Park is a non runner. West Ham have already sold the site to Galliard Homes and the contract apparently includes a clause preventing any other football club from playing there after they have vacated it.

    Besides which, West Ham are certain to have plundered the place regardless – ripping stuff out and selling it as mementos of the old stadium. It will be unfit for use.

  13. Don’t know about the hens, but surely Abramovic can have pitch size yacht built and docked at Tilbury 🙂

  14. What if the spuds and the chavs just don’t play at all anywhere for a couple of seasons. That sounds much better than letting them have any more than the required allocation of tickets for an away team. I do not recall any great rush to help us with rebuilding and maintaining our football schedule. leave them to suffer is probably best all round. We certainly should not help either of them.

  15. I suppose this illustrates how much of a bad idea it was for David Dein to promote our relocation to Wembley. Playing club football at the nation stadium was (and still is) a none starter, but Karen Brady’s solid work on getting West Ham into the Olympic Stadium and at that cost was simply amazing. Wish she was on our board.

  16. @Kenneth Widmerpool
    July 20, 2015 at 9:19 am

    🙂 🙂 its nice to make people laugh 🙂 🙂

  17. JimB

    I guess you’re right, but West Ham haven’t actually left Upton Park yet have they. I mean they could still change the contract with Galliard Homes and mutually benefit. Or have I missed something?

  18. So just do the deal with Galliard Homes, sure they wouldn’t mind an extra £15-30m profit.

  19. Why is the venue for the Spuds home games a question at this stage? Surely the sensible thing would have been for Levy et al to have made suitable arrangements during their protracted planning period.

    Would the surface of the Emirates stand an additional 19 League games – and possibly some cup games?

  20. As a Spud it’s good to read a sensible well written account of the situation without any hysteria.

  21. Flint
    Yeah, something like that, but the current agreement would have to renegotiated due to the “no football” clause. I’m sure Karen Brady could come up with some way to screw Spurs. Figuratively speaking of course.

  22. Thanks Phil. There’s normal rivalry and the like, but also the occasion for a bit of serious discussion. If you have any insight into where Tottenham will play during that year, then please do share it.

  23. My main concern would be :
    1. the pitch. We need a perfect pitch to play our passing game and with let us say some 25 extra matches will be very hard for the pitch. In my country we have ground sharing by two clubs in the top division and it usually leads to a bad pitch halfway the season

    2. The stadium itself. I think most Tottenham supporters will be of the decent kind. But what do you do with the ones that see it as a nice chance to ‘leave some marks’? I think it should be written in stone how each broken object or grafiti should be paid for by Tottenham.

    A possibility could be to just open the lower tear for tottenham matches? That way the upper tier would at least be safe for my point 2 and it might be sufficient for Tottenham to fill it? Anyone has an idea of the division of the upper and lower tier?

  24. Just found it the lower tier has a capacity of 24.425 seats and the club level has 7139 seats so a total of 31.564 seats in total.

    I can think some of the Tottenham supporters not wanting to go to the Emirates on a weekly basis.

    For Arsenal it can be a win-win situation. They could earn a nice amount of money from renting the stadium. It could help us buy another superstar player in the end 😉 🙂

  25. I think we know very well that there will be significant vandalism if Tottenham share at Arsenal. I really doubt Totts fans would want to attend. I can’t really conceive of attending WHL for a season for Arsenal games – hopeless. But was happy to go to Wembley for the CL games.

    I don’t like the idea at all and very much doubt it will happen. But MK is also a very strange option as it is a long way away – circa 50 miles – and not particularly easy by public transport.

    Wembley or Olympic Stadium would seem far better options for them if contractual etc issues can be resolved. Or play in a restricted ground? If the roof assembly is an issue can that not be done over a close season? Does it really take over 3 months to complete this?

  26. Walter

    I bet it never even gets to the table. I’m against it and not just for logistical reasons. We have had decent relations with the Spurs board in the past, but Levy seems a particularly unpleasant person ( remember the attempted interference in our transfer dealings with Real Madrid).
    We can afford not to have any Premier League scatterbrained ideas forced onto us.

  27. Wikipedia listed about 40 clubs in London. Apart from Arsenal, West Ham and Chelsea with which they may be issues that make ground share negotiations unfeasible or impossible to conclude upon, there are still Crystal Palace’s Selhurst Park (cap. 26, 309), Charlton Athletic’s The Valley (cap.27,111), Fulham’s Craven Cottage (cap.25, 700), Milwall’s The Den (cap.20,146) and even Queen’s Park Ranger’s Loftus Road (cap. 18,360) to consider as short term replacement for Tottemham’s White Hart Lane (cap, 36,230).

    Tottenham had done the first logical thing to look for a higher capacity stidum and or a close stadium to their traditional North London haunt but, if none of the options that have come up in this search is feasible, surely, they can look farther afield.

    If an agreement is feasible with any of the smaller options, surely, they can return to the FA to work out a schedule for one year only to make a ground share with such a club possible.

    Nobody said it would be easy or that the process would happen exactly on the best terms feasible to them.

  28. Upton Park was never an option. The owners only bought the club in order to redevelop that site.

    Must be true what the AAA spent a decade trying to propagandise with the support of their pals at Newscorp/Talkshite etc.: that the AFC board are the worst in Football?
    Nevermind the buzzcocks, Rangers (Queens park and the club Servco once known in a past life as Glasgow Rangers), Newcastle, Levy’s hilarious record in the market (special agents have been laughing), Risdale & Bates, Leeds Leeds Leeds etc.

  29. “Health and Safety logistics” = too much Wonga! 🙂

    I know some amongst the great and the good who are skilled at inflating costs on behalf of their clients prefer to ask non-builders how much a building would cost to construct. Seems logical if that is your game.
    Until a competent and reliable main contractor is appointed no one knows anything*. And all the while relative construction costs are rising.

    *ever wondered how AFC delivered their stadium on time and on budget when so many appear not to? Buro Happold and McAlpine had put pen to paper before the final bit of funding, the year long delay, had been secured for the project in N5.
    It is not rocket science, it’s simply one of the oldest professions (building stuff!).

  30. why not at the Ems? Tiny totts could send Kane and eriksen to play for our reserve sides plus £1m a game. sounds fair deal to me.
    Afterall they are neighbours.

  31. Interesting.

    Nice to have a debate without the ‘you’re obsessed’ crowd turning up. In fact just the one guy with a good comment.

    As for the subject at hand. Nothing personal but I would hate to have Spurs at our home. As I’m sure they would be equally displeased to be there.

    Sounds like it’s going to be MK to me.

    I will say this, you would of thought this would of been sorted long ago.

    I can only guess they made some misguided assumptions?

    Either way I hazard a guess it’s a headache they could well do without.

    They do say moving is one of the most stressful days of your life. If it carries on like this Danny boy could be in need of some serious quantities of Vallium.

  32. @arse_or_brain
    “To that end if wembley isnt available maybe somewhere like harrow & wealdstone would share for a season.” Harrow & Wealdstone is a railway station. They would really be on the wrong track if they headed in that direction 😉

  33. I suppose the Spuds could always play on Plumstead Common for a season and call themselves Woolwich Arsenal Tottenham

  34. Arse-or-brain

    ‘I understand the tiny tots wanting to go to Wembley, first to see what it’s like…’

    I laughed.

  35. apo don’t be giving them any ideas. Please!

    As soon as Boris’ Oligarch’s Toll Bridge in W.London runs our of public money that they’ve fleeced of various councils, Roman just might step in and(hopefully) replace this Dickensian footbridge proposal* with Big Bertha, his new yacht/stadium docked in Fulham. I can see it now…

    *The contractors plan to import oirish slaves/labourers for the build, living in huts whilst hiding from police helicopters (this bit is happening already) in order to give the project that authentic Victiorian flavour

  36. @ Pete

    The reason why the cable net roof design precludes the possibility of Spurs playing in a partially complete stadium with construction ongoing is that it has to be lifted in one go. The lift itself should be complete within a day. But preparation takes some while. And the process requires heavy cables and machinery, cranes and various temporary structures around the pitch and on the stands. So ideally, you don’t want to be doing it with the stands already finished, with seats installed, and a pitch already laid. Furthermore, once the tension ring is in place, builders would then have to get to work on the roof trusses, roof cladding, floodlights, p.a. system etc. And there is no way that ‘elf & safety would allow 60K members of the public to sit underneath such a work in progress. It’s a non starter.

    As to others who have asked why Spurs have left it so late to find an alternative venue, given that they first announced plans for the new stadium seven years ago, the simple answer is that there would have been no need to move out under the old plans. The original roof was of a design that would have allowed it to be built in stages – thus no fan would have had to sit under a construction site, thereby falling foul of ‘elf & safety. That said, I don’t believe that Spurs have really left it late. The stories about moving to Milton Keynes for a season have been around for a couple of years – more or less the time that Populous drew up the new stadium plans. So my (relatively informed) guess is that Spurs agreed a provisional deal with MK a year or two ago – and that that is where we will play in 2017-18 if no other option comes to fruition. However, if Spurs can come to a satisfactory arrangement with either the FA for the use of Wembley or the LLDC for the use of the Olympic stadium, then MK will be ditched (doubtless involving a lost deposit).

    As to the potential use of Upton Park, I believe that West Ham insisted upon a clause in their sale contract with Galliard Homes that forbids use of the stadium by any other team once West Ham have vacated the site.

    Finally @Jomki:

    You wrote: “They see Arsene wenger do it and think its easy”.

    I don’t believe that anyone at Spurs thinks it will be “easy”. Nevertheless, there are good reasons for believing that it won’t be as hard for Spurs as it was for Arsenal. But that’s probably for another time and place!

  37. I would be appalled if our new banner were to be defaced or desecrated !

  38. JimB

    It already appears to have been harder.
    Given the years that have passed.

    When did AFC submit proposals an planning apps?
    How long was it from that date (the initial planning app.) to Project Handover?

    Seek and ye shall find

  39. Interesting discussion, but ….

    Spring 2016 – subject to the completion of planning permission, work begins on the revised scheme.

    Haringey Borough Council, Greater London Authority, with Christmas and New Year holidays intervening plus English Heritage et al? Who knows when and if the revised scheme, will require redrafting?

  40. @ finsbury

    There’s really not so very much in it.

    Arsenal spent a year or two trying to develop plans and obtain permission to redevelop Highbury but eventually gave it up as a lost cause in 1998. They then tried to relocate to Wembley before that, too, proved impossible. They finally got around to identifying and buying the new site – Ashburton Grove – in 2000 but, primarily because of funding difficulties and legal challenges to compulsory purchase orders, it was a further four years before they were ready to commence construction in 2004.

    In all, it took Arsenal 7 years to get to that point.

    Spurs first announced their plan to build a new stadium adjacent to, and overlapping with, the existing stadium in autumn 2008. They obtained planning consent two years later but, a mere day after, announced that they had also entered the bidding for the Olympic stadium. Another year later, Spurs pulled out of the Olympic stadium running and returned their attention to a new stadium in Tottenham. Primarily as a consequence of funding difficulties, they subsequently revised plans for the new stadium and brought in new architects – Populous. They simultaneously spent a number of years trying to secure the final parcel of land required for the site before finally winning a legal judgement in favour of a compulsory purchase order. Site preparation and construction of the basement is now well under way.

    In all, it has taken Spurs 7 years to get to this point.

    All of which said, I believe that Jomki’s point was about how Arsenal fared while paying off the stadium debt and how Spurs will fare when paying off theirs.

  41. @ Notoverthehill

    You have a point about English Heritage. They could well be a fly in the ointment. But the only element of the redesign in which they will have a say is the proposed demolition of three locally listed buildings. And while it is perfectly possible that they won’t play ball, the demolition of those buildings is not material to the stadium construction itself. Spurs could be forced to keep the buildings but still build the stadium as planned.

    As to Haringey Council and the Mayor’s office et al, they are all fully on board with the plans. They will have been consulted at every step of the way. There are big plans for the wider regeneration of Tottenham and Spurs’ plans are in the midst of it all. The various planning bodies are very mindful of the summer 2018 completion deadline because of the contract signed with the NFL (and the benefits to the London / Haringey economy that they believe it will deliver). They are therefore all very keen to see it come to fruition. So I’d say that the chances of them putting a spanner in the works are slim to none.

  42. I fail to see any issues with the Totts playing at the Emirates.Here are the non-issues previously mentioned:

    1)Our enmity for them….why help our adversaries? We are all in the Football family, lets help each other as we cannot rely on the FA, EUFA or FUFA.

    2)The pitch being overused…..a genuine concern but today’s groundsmen are easily capable of managing this…and if there is damage due to overuse, the Totts will have to cover the repairs. Provided the games are properly dispersed, (ie: when the Arsenal are away, the Totts are at home, etc.

    3)Savage Spuds destroying the seats,etc…..they are no more savage than our supporters AND TFC have fairly good control of their supporters. As well, the Totts could pay for extra police and wardens in the grounds.

    4)The charges for their use of the grounds & services: we should charge whjat it costs them to have a normal h

  43. I fail to see any issues with the Totts playing at the Emirates.Here are the non-issues previously mentioned:

    1)Our enmity for them….why help our adversaries? We are all in the Football family, lets help each other as we cannot rely on the FA, EUFA or FUFA.

    2)The pitch being overused…..a genuine concern but today’s groundsmen are easily capable of managing this…and if there is damage due to overuse, the Totts will have to cover the repairs. Provided the games are properly dispersed, (ie: when the Arsenal are away, the Totts are at home, etc.

    3)Savage Spuds destroying the seats,etc…..they are no more savage than our supporters AND TFC have fairly good control of their supporters. As well, the Totts could pay for extra police and wardens in the grounds.

    4)The charges for their use of the grounds & services: we should charge what it costs us to have a normal home game plus a little bit extra for Cup games, plus a rental fee that is fair and reasonable, or let them assume the costs themselves and a small rental fee.

    One way or the other, it will not likely happen as the TOTTS risk having lower gates due to it being the Emirates.

  44. Thanks JimB

    This will tell you all you need to know (& more) about the build in N5

    If the ball started to roll in earnest up in N17 in 08 that is now seven years.
    Well. At least that giant Sainsbury’s is up.
    Like you said, the council and Lord Sainsbury, and pals, are fully on board with this large development built for offshore developers and investors, and appear to have been since before any public announcements

  45. Simplest solution is that Spuds give up home advantage in every game for the duration. Play all their games away. Each of the other clubs in the league have to add only 1 extra game at their stadium and would get the profits from that. Just add the cost of the lost revenue to the overall cost of the project and pay it off over the years (add it to the mortgage)!
    No way to Les Ems though!

  46. Sure, Arsenal and the spuds don’t have the best relationship. And they have helped each other out during times of war, which this isn’t.

    Something that Tony has written about, is fans from Liverpool (often) bringing in flares and incendiaries.

    If Tottenham and the EPL sign on, maybe for a season Wenger Stadium gets two names: Emirates Stadium, and White Chicken Lane. We assume that the Tottenham fans are going to break, deface and otherwise damage facilities.

    First off, it has apparently been found that Wenger Stadium doesn’t quite meet all the requirements for disabled people. That deficit is fixed and billed to Tottenham. That gets us off one shit list.

    The grounds and how fans are processed, is set up to provide (up to) 19 experiments on how to detect flares, incendiaries, dangerous objects, excessive amounts of change (nobody needs to bring in 50 pounds worth of change, they want the change to throw at players), and so on. The idea being to find solutions that can be applied at all football facilities (and hence putting the EPL on the hook for some of the expense). And after things are done, Tottenham gets the bill for the final (finished product) modifications for fan processing at Wenger Stadium.

    And this may involve “sniffers”, various kinds of video, audio or what not. The idea is that there is lead time, for people to research what to try.

    The spuds get a new stadium, and the EPL gets safer facilities. And Arsenal gets off the not quite perfect disabled facility list, and has production fan processing facilities to keep a bunch of nasty things from coming into the ground, allowing stewards to better do their jobs, and what not.

    A different point of view, if nothing else.

  47. What about the coins that the Spuds fans have a propensity of throwing ? Just imagine the possibilities of these being turned into deadly projectiles when the grass is being mowed . Not to mention the clogging up of the vacuum cleaners as these get caught inside of them .
    The worse thing ? The value of these coins collected would never be able to cover the cost of the time and labour ! And these cheap coins would chemically discolour the finely kept grass .

  48. Confidence isn’t walking into a room with your nose in the air, and thinking you’re better than everyone else. It’s walking into a room and not having to compare yourself to anyone else in the first place.

  49. @ finsbury -July 21, 2015 at 9:30 am – Thanks for that awesome link ! Man , what a great endeavor – a job well done .

  50. Happy dreams ?

    5 year old son, after watching a story of an Emperor on TV, “Mum, I also want 7 wives, one will cook for me, one will read for me, one will go for walk with me, one will sing for me,one can bath me,….”

    Mum smiled and said, “Then at night time I don’t have to accompany you to sleep!”
    After some thought, son said, “Not possible, I still want to sleep with you mummy!”
    Moms eyes fill up with tears of happiness, “My sweet son!”
    “Then who will sleep with your 7 wives?”
    “Let them sleep with Daddy!”

    Dads eyes fill up with tears of happiness:
    “My sweet son!”

Comments are closed.