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.

On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, John Rowland wrote:

Mwmbwls wrote:

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. We
will continue to work with the club to look at how supporters can best
travel to games.

Since Spurs are looking to enlarge their ground anyway, a new Ashburton
Grove-sized stadium would just about fit on the allotments and bus depot
at Marsh Lane. Call the new stadium Northumberland Park, so that
everyone knows which mainline station and tube station are best. The new
tube station, the A1055 and the stadium would all be on the same side of
the railway.

They'd still have to traverse the footbridge or level crossing to get from
the NR down platform to the stadium, though, so we're back to square one!

tom

--
We start here and head south.

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.li...

Try going somewhere like Stoke or Coventry or Shrewsbury, where the
ground
is miles away from any kind of railway service, on a regular basis.

But somewhere with rather more parking?


Not at the Ricoh there isn't!

BTN

On Tue, 6 Nov 2007, Sir Benjamin Nunn wrote:

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.li...

Try going somewhere like Stoke or Coventry or Shrewsbury, where the
ground is miles away from any kind of railway service, on a regular
basis.

But somewhere with rather more parking?

Not at the Ricoh there isn't!

Is that a fax? Well, what do you expect from a copycat outfit like that
....

tom

--
But for [Flavor Flav's] "YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAH BOYYYYYYYYYY"s alone he should
be given Rap Legend status. -- Nate Patrin, ILX

On Nov 5, 12:44 pm, Mwmbwls wrote:
http://www.hornseyjournal.co.uk/cont...yjournal/news/...

Bernie Kingsley, trust board member, said: "We made the case very strongly that the Victoria Line should be extended to Northumberland Park.

"The tracks are already there; basically, all they need to do is put a
platform there so people could get on and off. In term so of the CPZ
that is exactly what should be done."

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.
We will continue to work with the club to look at how supporters can
best travel to games.

The major problem with extending the Victoria Line to Northumberland
Park is that it would appear to need to occupy the same ground that is
being looked at for the quadrupling of the line from Coppermill
Junction to Broxbourne as part of the proposed expansion of Stansted
Airport.
The following quotations include London TravelWatch's response to the
BAA and two concerning the relocation of Spurs. Perhaps in the end
scrapping the runnig track at Stratford - especially if the Olympics
cost look like over running may well be the best option.

http://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/document/2762/get

Extract from London TravelWatch Response to BAA Stansted Expansion
Consultation
1st May 2005
Quote

(a) Rail Strategy.
Currently 62% of all airport users from central and inner London use
the rail network to access the airport. By 2030 it is estimated that
substantial additional capacity will be required between Stansted and
Central London, and Stansted and Cambridge to meet demand from both
airport passengers and the projected growth area on this corridor. The
High Level Option Assessment concluded that these two corridors were
those most likely to be viable for rail operation, and requiring
additional capacity. It therefore recommended that proposals for new
lines between Stansted and Chelmsford, Cambridge and Oxford, and
Stansted and Braintree, should not be pursued as relevant to this
planning application.
The High Level Option Assessment looked also at various options for
increasing capacity between Stansted Airport and Central London
including options for making best use of existing infrastructure,
enhanced train capacity (double deck or longer trains), a new station
at Stansted West, various loop and new lines from the West Anglia Main
Line, alternative London terminals, on line enhancements, new lines
from Harlow to Stansted, Chingford to Stansted and an extension of the
Central Line from Epping to Stansted. Of
these only the on line enhancement scheme was able to accommodate all
of the objectives of meeting airport and regional demands, and being
affordable and deliverable, with limited environmental impact and
having minimal detriment to existing users. This is being recommended
for further work alongside proposals for longer trains and making best
use of the existing network. BAA acknowledges that in pursuing these
options it will be necessary add two additional tracks between
Broxbourne Junction
(Broxbourne) and Copper Mill Junction (Tottenham Hale) and to provide
a second tunnelinto Stansted Airport itself. (There is recognition
also that with the additional tracks between Broxbourne and Tottenham
Hale that the provision of level crossings needs to be reviewed and
this could have significant implications for pedestrian access to
stations and to the provision of local bus services, including those
within the London TravelWatch
remit). In addition it is recognised that additional capacity is
required on the Stansted Airport - Cambridge - Birmingham service is
required, and this would be achieved by lengthening all trains to 3
car operation (Network Rail's draft Greater Anglia Route Utilisation
Strategy also highlights the need for increased capacity on this
service elsewhere).
The Rail Strategy needs to be read alongside Network Rail's Draft
Greater Anglia Route Utilisation Strategy and Transport for London's
Rail 2025 strategy. Both these documents and processes are
acknowledged within the BAA submission and there has been much
collaborative working in this area between BAA, TfL and Network Rail.
The proposals by BAA do not conflict with the options recommended for
development in the Draft Greater Anglia Route Utilisation Strategy.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/low/foo...r/6056714..stm
Quote
Monday, 16 October 2006, 17:50 GMT 18:50 UK
Spurs rule out 2012 stadium move
Tottenham say they are no longer interested in a switch to the 2012
Olympic Stadium because of plans to retain a running track at the
venue.
Chairman Daniel Levy hinted last year he may bid to take Spurs to the
new 80,000 stadium once the Games are over.
But sporting director Damien Comolli revealed: "There is no way we are
looking to move there.
"All grounds with a track have a poor atmosphere, attendances are down
and clubs say moving there was a mistake."
Monday, 5 November 2007, 23:32 GMT
Unquote

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/spo...cle2821147.ece
Quote
November 7, 2007
Spurs consider groundshare in talks about stadium plans
Gary Jacob
Nearly 30 years ago Tottenham Hotspur looked to take a radical step
when they discussed a groundshare with Arsenal at Alexandra Palace in
North London, but now they are playing catchup with their local
rivals.
While Tottenham's search for a new stadium continues, Arsenal are in
their second season at the Emirates Stadium, Manchester City have
moved into a new facility, Old Trafford has been increased to hold
76,000 and Liverpool were given the go-ahead yesterday to build a £400
million stadium.
Even West Ham United are pressing ahead with leaving Upton Park, a
stadium that Tottenham supporters will be alarmed to hear they could
be temporarily calling home after the club held a meeting with their
rivals about a groundshare.
Daniel Levy, the Tottenham chairman, has promised a decision on the
future of White Hart Lane, which has a capacity of about 36,000, for
early next year. He has asked architects to draw up plans for a new
50,000-seat stadium on the site, extending it to the Tottenham High
Road, but the club are also considering three sites in the boroughs of
Enfield and Haringey. Each option has significant obstacles.
Tottenham have bought all but three properties around their stadium,
but its redevelopment would require a significant improvement in the
transport links. Severe traffic congestion makes driving to games an
arduous task and Seven Sisters, the local Underground station, is too
far from the stadium. Despite pressure from Tottenham, Haringey
Council and Transport for London are unwilling to pay for the £80
million cost of extending the Victoria Line to Northumberland Park,
which is 500 yards from the ground and where tracks exist.
Rebuilding White Hart Lane would also require playing at another
stadium for about two years. Wembley has been ruled out, because it
has a licence for about 35 events a year, and Upton Park will not go
down well.
Levy is conscious that Arsenal's proximity to a train station and
Central London means that they are able to attract a corporate
audience, which has led the Tottenham chairman to consider sites near
Tottenham Hale Underground station and Edmonton, in the Lee Valley.
They are not without problems, because the club would need to buy
land, which, as Arsenal found, can stir local opposition into trying
to prevent the project.
The cost of a new ground could be about £300 million, most of which
will need to be borrowed. Arsenal were fortunate that Highbury is
worth about £100 million as a residential development, but White Hart
Lane would probably fetch half that, because it is in a less desirable
area. The problem for Enic, Tottenham's largest shareholder, is that
few people will be willing to buy the club while these uncertainties
exist.
Unquote