Quote:
Originally Posted by Addick
Ever heard of the term Soulless Bowl? A lack of atmosphere is a problem at almost every new ground.
Spurs owned a fair bit of their property and even they had to use a Compulsory Purchase Order. With the cost of land in London and potential obstacles, leasing avoids numerous headaches.
|
Yeah and I understand that a new stadium that suddenly has double the number of people and a bunch of tourists isn't the same experience. But looking specifically at that stadium there are some unique challenges compared to the clubs that have built their own. Like the structure isn't specifically built for this, so people are a million miles away from the action. Part of that is size, and part of that is a track between the fans and the pitch. It's less than ideal.
As far as the lease v. own, there is a challenge to be sure. I know that the issue with WHL took a while and at one point they were looking at the Olympic Stadium as well. Frankly I think they dodged a bullet there for a few reasons. One being it's not in Tottenham. I can see the point of view that it's a lot of hassle and red tape to be able to build. That said just because the lease option is easier doesn't mean it's the best solution. Maybe the plan is to throw money at the team and try to qualify for Europe and then sell though, in which case this is a good business case.