On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 17:51:26 -0000, "tim....."
wrote:


"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
.li...
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Mwmbwls quoted:

A Transport for London spokesman said: "London Underground (LU) has
examined the possibility of extending the Victoria line to Northumberland
Park, and this has proved not to be a viable option. The only viable
location for a station at Northumberland Park is to the east of the WAGN
tracks, which would mean that either large crowds would be using the
level crossing or existing narrow footbridge, or that a new footbridge
would have to be constructed at great expense.

How great an expense could a new footbridge possibly be? Are TfL assuming
they'd be paying for it? How much dough could be extracted from Spurs? If
it meant they could stay where they were rather than moving to a whole new
site, surely they'd be willing to pay quite a bit for it?

I have no idea why Spurs want to move, but I would
doubt that 'insufficient transport links' is the reason.

I suspect that the capacity being only 36k would be the reason.

In message , James Farrar
writes

On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 17:51:26 -0000, "tim....."
wrote:

I have no idea why Spurs want to move, but I would
doubt that 'insufficient transport links' is the reason.

I suspect that the capacity being only 36k would be the reason.

Well, there's an 80,000-seater stadium going begging in 2012 ... but, of
course, the planned reduction in size of the Olympic stadium after the
games means it will then be too small for either Spurs or West Ham. I
wonder why they didn't design it so that, when reduced in size, it was
actually suitable for a premier-league club looking for a new ground?
--
Paul Terry

On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 18:15:32 +0000, Paul Terry
wrote:

In message , James Farrar
writes

On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 17:51:26 -0000, "tim....."
wrote:

I have no idea why Spurs want to move, but I would
doubt that 'insufficient transport links' is the reason.

I suspect that the capacity being only 36k would be the reason.

Well, there's an 80,000-seater stadium going begging in 2012 ... but, of
course, the planned reduction in size of the Olympic stadium after the
games means it will then be too small for either Spurs or West Ham. I
wonder why they didn't design it so that, when reduced in size, it was
actually suitable for a premier-league club looking for a new ground?

I suspect they wanted to avoid the football-or-athletics arguments
which delayed the new Wembley for about five years and tripled its
cost...

On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Paul Terry wrote:

In message , James Farrar
writes

On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 17:51:26 -0000, "tim....."
wrote:

I have no idea why Spurs want to move, but I would
doubt that 'insufficient transport links' is the reason.

I suspect that the capacity being only 36k would be the reason.

Well, there's an 80,000-seater stadium going begging in 2012 ... but, of
course, the planned reduction in size of the Olympic stadium after the
games means it will then be too small for either Spurs or West Ham. I
wonder why they didn't design it so that, when reduced in size, it was
actually suitable for a premier-league club looking for a new ground?

ISTR they tried that, but they needed a club to sign up to take it before
it was built, and none of them did. Can't cite source on that, though.

tom

--
We start here and head south.