Ground Share?

Apparently the top plan is to increase WHL's capacity but it would mean 2 years groundsharing elsewhere while being done. The Beeb think this could be with Wet Spam or the Scum.

Ahem, thoughts?

Not with the Scum!

While the scum option is by far the worse, neither really appeals... however, if a temp ground share was the best alternative, Charlton or maybe even Fulham (too small though, I think) would be my preference.

Then again, it doesn't really bother us sipping away at out Kilkenny's and Stella's at Delaney's, in sub-tropical climate and surrounded by the dizzying lights of Wanchai.

imho, closing and developing 1 stand at a time while keeping 3 open, sounds like a cool idea.

Hairy wrote:

imho, closing and developing 1 stand at a time while keeping 3 open, sounds like a cool idea.

Good call. I recall this has been done before. Dunno how practical it is though, if they're increasing by about 20K seats.

I also recall reading that the Scum groundshared with us before (during WW2 maybe?).

FYI:
Wembley 90,000
Emirates 60,432
Stamford Bridge 42,360
Boleyn 35,647
Valley 27,111
Cottage 26,600
Selhurst 26,309
New Den 20,146
Vicarage 19,920
Loftus 19,148
Griffin Park 12,763

(I'll stop there)

Considering the rent we'd pay the host club and the lost revenue from games if we play to a small crowd, the options seem limited. Fulham, Palace, Charlton, Spam, Chelski and the Scum seem the only remotely viable options.

Hairy. I don't think it's possible to close one stand cos the development plan involves knocking down the whole stadium and rotating the pitch 90 degrees.

My only concern with ground sharing for two years is we'd lose our 'home' advantage. Given our current league position that's a genuine worry.

Right you're right about swivelling the picth around... so probably a no -goer.

The Valley is by far the best neutral stadium in terms of proximity, capacity and modern facilities. With regards to security, there're a decent footballing bunch around those parts too, which is a hell of lot more than The Den and Stanford Bridge. Loftus Road is too small.

cracked me up with your last line though !

There were rumours not so long ago that Spurs were after moving to the 2012 Olympic Stadium in Stratford - after the Olympics obviously

WE'LL BE GROUND SHARING WITH ORIENT AT THIS RATE. RAMOS OUT

I agree that Charlton seems the obvious choice.

Since we're in another 'transitional season', home advantage may not help us much anyway!

Number 10 wrote:

I agree that Charlton seems the obvious choice.!

The only way we'll be playing at The Valley is if Charlton get promoted. Have you guys any idea how difficult it is to get to that ground? It might rile many, but why not share with the gooners for a few years? Close by and large enough to accommodate our legions of fans.Waiting for the flames....... but I'd rather play in front of 60000 Spurs fans then 26000 (or however many it is) at the Valley.

Bottom line is, whoever is desperate enough to have our dosh. I suspect the likes of the Filth (huge debt) and Wemberlee (FA likewise in debt) will bite our hand off. But the former will zhit themselves at the prospect of a fortnightly trashing of their bogs, so they may decline. The latter are so purist (and daft) that they may not see the gift horse staring at them. So I'll plump for the Spammers. Oh what a lovely way to spend a Saturday/Sunday having to negotiate the hoardes of East End pikeys. Thankfully I'll be in Hong Kong

Sharing with the Scum has financial and logistical pros to be sure.

But I am going to fail to see sense through a blind mist of anti-Arsenal rage. For a bit anyway.

How could we possibly share with the scum? Our hoolies would trash the place every week!

Wouldn't surprise me if we end up playing our home games in New York for 2 years !!

You heard it first here !

If we end up ground sharing in London I'd opt for emirates stadium. Be great...for the rest of their time at the Emirates the scum will have to live in the knowledge it was our "home" ground too for a while.

Wembley's gotta be the pick of the bunch surely?

What about Twikenham? That would meet all the criteria I think?

twiglet wrote:

Wembley's gotta be the pick of the bunch surely?

What about Twikenham? That would meet all the criteria I think?

Oh yeah, I'm sure the Rugby union committee will sanction that. They wouldn't even allow a semi final to be played on their sacred turf.

spur'don wrote:

twiglet wrote:

Wembley's gotta be the pick of the bunch surely?

What about Twikenham? That would meet all the criteria I think?

Oh yeah, I'm sure the Rugby union committee will sanction that. They wouldn't even allow a semi final to be played on their sacred turf.

money talks - one semi final would be peanuts. Two seasons may be a different story??

No chance. Trust me.

No one's thought of the obvious. 125 years.......gotta be Hackney Marshes. Do they still exist?