Spurs new stadium has spursy - Delayed

[truebluethroughandthrough]

So the new stadium has failed vital safety tests.... Their fans are royally pissed that they now have to play their next 4 games at Wembley.

It happens in construction I guess especially billion pound projects, but it does seem a bit underhand to inform their STHs a couple of days after their no refund policy in their T & Cs ???

( they knew last week )

Apparently a lot of their fans bought last season Wembley season tickets just to jump the waiting list.

Now it looks at least a quarter of the season will be played at Wembley.

Suck it up ffs, it’s hardly the Ricoh.

 

At best end of October is the word ?

All seems a bit spursy to me..

[Fox92]

Excited for Spurs away this season if it's their new ground but ain't going Wembley, because surely if 4 games are played at Wembley they all have to be?

[kingcarr21]

My brother in law has had to be drafted in to go down their to sort the shit out. Been their for about 3 weeks now sorting out the health and safety. His company dragged him off one project to go straight down there.

 

Haven't managed to speak to him but would be interested to get some inside info.

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, Fox92 said:

Excited for Spurs away this season if it's their new ground but ain't going Wembley, because surely if 4 games are played at Wembley they all have to be?

Clubs have switched mid-season before. I remember Hull did it a few years ago.

 

 

Think there's some issue with Wembley being double-booked for an NFL game when Spurs are due to be at home to Man City, isn't there? Wouldn't be at all surprised if both clubs tried to push for their game to be played abroad themselves...

[jammie82uk]

27 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

Clubs have switched mid-season before. I remember Hull did it a few years ago.

 

 

Think there's some issue with Wembley being double-booked for an NFL game when Spurs are due to be at home to Man City, isn't there? Wouldn't be at all surprised if both clubs tried to push for their game to be played abroad themselves...

 

Well the stadium should Apparently be ready by then if not they will probably make it a mid week game. I can’t see there being a chance the game will be played abroad but then this is spurs and the league seems to make up the rules to suit them 

[urban.spaceman]

Seem to remember there being a rule about the number of stadiums you can play in as a 'home' stadium in one season. This might have something to do with the supposed payment to the FA.

[urban.spaceman]

Quote

Spurs were granted permission by the Premier League board to play at two different home stadiums in one season because their £850million home would not be ready for the start of this campaign.

Dock the ****ers points!!

[urban.spaceman]

Also:

Quote

The NFL – which has a ten-year deal with Spurs to play at least two games per season at the new stadium – has said that it has the option of moving Oakland Raiders against Seattle Seahawks on October 14 to Wembley.

Hope the NFL renege on the deal. They shouldn't have been allowed to make the deal anyway!

[Corky]

So you have to be granted dispensation to play home matches in two different stadiums yet there was a movement to take matches around the world a few years ago 

[purpleronnie]

Looking at the current state of the ground they'll do well to have a game there this year.

[jammie82uk]

The farce apparently continues...

 

Spurs have made a payment to the FA for usage of Wembley till the end of the year

 

Spurs have asked to reverse their fixture against Man City but thats been vetoed by the premier league to “protect the integrity of the league” 

 

The premier league has stated they should work with Man City and Sky to arrange a new date 

But if that’s that viable then they are apparently open to Spurs suggestion of playing the game at Twickenham 

[Dan]

I've tried to avoid the Spurs bashing and let it rest a bit now but it's just too hard not to isn't it. They're hilarious.

[Aus Fox]

I heard they were hoping for the 1st home game of the season but now it looks like it won’t be ready until the 3rd.

[urban.spaceman]

4 hours ago, jammie82uk said:

The farce apparently continues...

 

Spurs have made a payment to the FA for usage of Wembley till the end of the year

 

Spurs have asked to reverse their fixture against Man City but thats been vetoed by the premier league to “protect the integrity of the league” 

 

The premier league has stated they should work with Man City and Sky to arrange a new date 

But if that’s that viable then they are apparently open to Spurs suggestion of playing the game at Twickenham 

1

So not only are they allowing Spurs to break the "home games at one stadium only in a season" rule, they're now going to allow them to break that rule twice?

[jammie82uk]

1 hour ago, urban.spaceman said:

So not only are they allowing Spurs to break the "home games at one stadium only in a season" rule, they're now going to allow them to break that rule twice?

This is the premier league rule regarding “home” stadiums 

 

Each Club shall register its Stadium with the Board and must play all matches in the competitions listed in Rule L.9 for which it is the Home Club at the Stadium. No Club shall remove to another Stadium (either on a permanent or temporary basis) without first obtaining the written consent of the Board, in accordance with Rule K.6, below.
 K.6.
 In considering whether to give any such consent, the Board shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case (including, but not limited to, the factors set out in this Rule K.6) and shall not consent unless reasonably satisfied that such consent:
K.6.1. would be consistent with the objects of the League as set out in the Memorandum;
K.6.2. would be appropriate having in mind the relationship (if any) between the locality with which by its name or otherwise the applicant Club is traditionally associated and that in which such Club proposes to establish its Stadium;
K.6.3. would not to any material extent adversely affect such Club’s Officials, Players, supporters, shareholders, sponsors and others having an interest in its activities;
K.6.4. would not have a material adverse effect on Visiting Clubs;

K.6.5. would not to any material extent adversely affect Clubs (or Football League clubs) having their registered grounds in the immediate vicinity of the proposed location; and
K.6.6. would enhance the reputation of the League and promote the game of association football generally.

[urban.spaceman]

5 minutes ago, jammie82uk said:

This is the premier league rule regarding “home” stadiums 

 

Each Club shall register its Stadium with the Board and must play all matches in the competitions listed in Rule L.9 for which it is the Home Club at the Stadium. No Club shall remove to another Stadium (either on a permanent or temporary basis) without first obtaining the written consent of the Board, in accordance with Rule K.6, below.
 K.6.
  In considering whether to give any such consent, the Board shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case (including, but not limited to, the factors set out in this Rule K.6) and shall not consent unless reasonably satisfied that such consent:
K.6.1. would be consistent with the objects of the League as set out in the Memorandum;
 K.6.2. would be appropriate having in mind the relationship (if any) between the locality with which by its name or otherwise the applicant Club is traditionally associated and that in which such Club proposes to establish its Stadium;
K.6.3. would not to any material extent adversely affect such Club’s Officials, Players, supporters, shareholders, sponsors and others having an interest in its activities;
K.6.4. would not have a material adverse effect on Visiting Clubs;

K.6.5. would not to any material extent adversely affect Clubs (or Football League clubs) having their registered grounds in the immediate vicinity of the proposed location; and
K.6.6. would enhance the reputation of the League and promote the game of association football generally.

I'm very curious to see what happens here, particularly with their Man City game. Boro got deducted 3 points for failing to attend a league match after their whole squad got the flu in 97 & got they relegated because of it. How many rules would Spurs be breaking if they failed to host this match? I hope Man City, the FA and the PL don't budge an inch!

[jammie82uk]

12 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

I'm very curious to see what happens here, particularly with their Man City game. Boro got deducted 3 points for failing to attend a league match after their whole squad got the flu in 97 & got they relegated because of it. How many rules would Spurs be breaking if they failed to host this match? I hope Man City, the FA and the PL don't budge an inch!

 

They would be breaking Just the one rule

 

(L.15) “failure to play a league match” 

 

Except in the case of a League Match which, without either of the participating Clubs being at fault, is postponed or abandoned under the provisions of Rule L.12, any Club which causes the postponement or abandonment of a League Match on the date fixed under Rule L.1 or to which it is rearranged under Rules L.1.2, L.6 or L.7 will be in breach of these Rules.
 

 

Rule L.12 mentioned is if the referee or the police call the game off on safety grounds 

 

No punishments are mentioned 

 

The easy option would be that Spurs need to get Man City and Sky to agree to move the game to a different day and then the premier league will rubber stamp it 

 

the issue arising is that Sky have picked the game to be shown live

 

Sky are only permitted to show games in the packaged slots they have brought so sky could refuse to reschedule 

 

should sky refuse to reschedule they need to then get the premier leagues permission to use another different stadium 

[Izzy]

[ozleicester]

So if im reading this right.... Spurs will have possession of the ground... but cant do anything with it?

[UniFox21]

Heard from a friend that around 35 of the 300 Fire alarm loops have been fitted and are working properly. Knows someone working on-site and reckons it could be a couple of months before its all up and done properly. 

[Strokes]

On 16/08/2018 at 12:29, UniFox21 said:

Heard from a friend that around 35 of the 300 Fire alarm loops have been fitted and are working properly. Knows someone working on-site and reckons it could be a couple of months before its all up and done properly. 

That’s got to be a minimum 50 panel network, I wouldn’t want to be responsible for writing that config under so much time constrained pressure.

[UniFox21]

29 minutes ago, Strokes said:

That’s got to be a minimum 50 panel network, I wouldn’t want to be responsible for writing that config under so much time constrained pressure.

 

There's a load of jobs advertised at high pay to get the stuff done asap. Would suggest that'll it'll take a while to get anywhere near done and tested correctly. Thats without any errors or breakages

[Strokes]

2 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

There's a load of jobs advertised at high pay to get the stuff done asap. Would suggest that'll it'll take a while to get anywhere near done and tested correctly. Thats without any errors or breakages

What sort of pay are we talking?

Its a shame it would be short term contract work because I’m not ready to walk out and go sole trader yet.

[Mark 'expert' Lawrenson]

On 16/08/2018 at 10:29, UniFox21 said:

Heard from a friend that around 35 of the 300 Fire alarm loops have been fitted and are working properly. Knows someone working on-site and reckons it could be a couple of months before its all up and done properly. 

Someone is going to get sacked!

[UniFox21]

51 minutes ago, Strokes said:

What sort of pay are we talking?

Its a shame it would be short term contract work because I’m not ready to walk out and go sole trader yet.

Here's the screenshot of the job site my friend sent me, its decent bloody pay