Perhaps, it might have the opposite effect straight away because of the energy it will produce from fans who are finally in the stadium.
They do just bottle it
This deserves more love. Lovely stuff.
Name me another example whereby a team has played in three different home grounds in a season?
Or they can plan it so they build it in a year, and that year you play in another stadium?
THAT makes no sense.
What other teams have moved into a new stadium part way through a PL season? Hint: none.
Scudamore even said himself a few years back that you'd have to play in one stadium for a whole season (shocker the league backed down) for the integrity of the competition.
I don't know why I'm even replying to you, Spurs could suggest playing each of their home games in a different US State and you'd find a way to argue it was completely reasonable.
It's still a rectangle of grass with seats all around and the same people watching it.
It would need a Jurgen Klopp style mentality to blame a loss to Spurs on a new stadium
It would need a Jurgen Klopp style mentality to blame a loss to Spurs on a new stadium
We already served a 2 window transfer ban so I think we should be left off the hook for this one.
Another example? When did Spurs play in three different home grounds in a season?
It's not realistic to be able to demolish an old stadium and build a much bigger and more complex new one on the same site within the space of 1 year.
How many Prem teams have built a new stadium during the Prem era? How many have built their new stadium on the site of the old one?
Just wait, though. Everyone knows that a world class stadium boosts all your players' stats by 10%.
Do it for two years then. Or three.
Point was that if you stick to your plan you can be finished in the summer, and if your not. Well, yes then you should wait till next year
That's entirely irrelevant, you have another stadium you're making use of.
It should have been agreed from the beginning that you'd be in a temporary 'home' ground for two seasons.
It's not happened yet, but it's looking likely with Wembley, MK Dons and now New WHL
You must be looking forward to going there, it looks absolutely fantastic. The best looking stadium in Europe in my opinion.
We (Manchester United) did it in 1971/72 FYI. Those were league games too.... not a league cup match.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971–72_Manchester_United_F.C._season
"Due to Manchester United being banned from playing their first two home matches in Old Trafford, after hooligans had thrown knives into the away section"
Daaaamn
Anyway, are there people on here who feel strongly against Spurs being allowed to play the last 5 home games at the new stadium if it's ready?
You would think that the club would want their first games at the new place to be happy, memorable ones.
The end of the season is only ever a disappointment for spurs when they inevitably end up with nothing.
The end of the season is only ever a disappointment for spurs when they inevitably end up with nothing.
They shouldn't really be allowed to. But it will be consigned to history eventually.
I am. It really does look to be state-of-the-art, with fantastic design features and facilities in all directions.
You asked: "What other teams have moved into a new stadium part way through a PL season?"
But when no other Prem club has ever built a new stadium on the site of the old one - which of course means they didn't have to play home games elsewhere during construction - you say this fact is irrelevant
It is irrelevant, they still didn't use multiple home grounds in a season which is the only issue at hand.You asked: "What other teams have moved into a new stadium part way through a PL season?"
But when no other Prem club has ever built a new stadium on the site of the old one - which of course means they didn't have to play home games elsewhere during construction - you say this fact is irrelevant
Nobody forced Spurs to build on the site of their old ground. The rules were in place and Spurs chose to do it anyway.You asked: "What other teams have moved into a new stadium part way through a PL season?"
But when no other Prem club has ever built a new stadium on the site of the old one - which of course means they didn't have to play home games elsewhere during construction - you say this fact is irrelevant
You make it sound as if I'm complaining, when in fact it's various non-Spurs fans doing all the complaining in here.
That's because the same advantage is open to everyone. Every team can strengthen in the window. The analogy doesn't wash.
No I don’t. I’m pointing out Spurs chose to build at the only site where this problem could occur. For that reason Spurs are the ones this should be a problem for. Not every other club.
Why is this a problem for any other club than Spurs? These delays and uncertainties hasn't exactly benefited us.
Why is it a problem to play at a different stadium to everyone else? Even if you forget the potential boost it could give Spurs what about the away fans who may have planned travel etc? It doesn’t matter how negatively they have impacted Spurs because they are the ones who chose this situation.
Exactly so. Spurs have had the disadvantage of playing away from our home ground all season so far, but now some people gripe because for the last few games we get to play at home again.
I don't think the venue was ever confirmed to be Wembley for those games.
Spurs are the ones that chose to demolish their stadium, so the disadvantage is on them. The rule is there for a reason, I don't know why we are even debating this.
Any word on if they will be allowed to play the CL quarter final in their stadium?
Fact of the matter is Spurs knew the stadium wasn't going to be completed on time. A highly ambitious project. Levy pushing out statements in September and October about unforseen delays was a joke. The league couldn't do anything about it by then.
We all know teams take a while to settle into a new ground. With the top four undecided it's a risky move for Spurs to move home fixtures, especially when they have been OK at Wembley and they still have to travel to the Etihad and Anfield.
We all know teams take a while to settle into a new ground. With the top four undecided it's a risky move for Spurs to move home fixtures, especially when they have been OK at Wembley and they still have to travel to the Etihad and Anfield.
Spurs have been doing pretty good at Wembley, they’d be best to stick with it for the rest of the season if they can. A new stadium could affect them at first, even if it is their new home.
Ok, then let everyone move stadium mid season if they want to, is this a privilege which applies only to us?
How do you think it will affect travel for Brighton fans? Considering a date had not been set yet as a result of their continued fa Cup involvement.
Or Palace fans, similarly because e of the FA Cup and the fans will mostly live in London.
We're not moving cities, it's the same city. Brighton fans if coming by train will still have to come into Victoria either way. They can't have booked tickets or hotels yet because the fixture depends on what happens in their match vs Millwall. The new stadium if anything will be easier for them as the Victoria line goes straight up to seven sisters.
So what awkwardness are we causing for the opposing fans exactly?
Are we pretending this is the first time Spurs have expected to move? What about when the City game couldn’t be played?
I don't really get the argument in this thread to be honest. The rule is there for a reason. It is unfair if one relegation candidate gets to play Spurs in a temporary stadium while another gets to play Spurs in their own stadium backed by the euphoria of moving to their own place. Any advantage or disadvantage to Spurs is irrelevant because it's self-imposed.
