Ground share. What’s your preference?
With the rumours flying around that Spurs are finally about to redevelop The Lane which would mean us playing elsewhere for 2 seasons there have been rumours in the papers of where we’d play in the mean time. Wembley has apparently tried to charge us too much money (no surprise there when a hotdog is nearly £7) and the Spurs board have dismissed out of hand the option of sharing Cashburden Grove with the Scum down the road and instead, it is rumoured, are considering a ground share with the Spammers.
This may be controversial with some but surely The Emirates would be a far superior ground to share than the Boleyn for several reasons.
Firstly: Capacity. Emirates holds near 60,000 where as the Boleyn holds a little over 35,000. Surely if we’re building a 52,000 seater stadium we want to be playing in a ground that would accommodate the “new” season ticket holders. A 16,000 increase at the Lane would probably see an additional 10,000 season tickets allowed. Why not get that £7 million in for an extra 2 years? Then just move that straight into the “new” Lane. The increased gate receipts for 2 seasons would go some way to paying off the stadium loan (or at least the interest) before it’s even finished.
Secondly: Area. What’s the preference for the fans. 4 miles down Seven Sisters Road or the far Eastern end of the “oh so reliable” District line? You think getting away from WHL is tough then try leaving a game at West Ham. They don’t have the option of Mainline or tube we do. They have 1 not very large tube station and traffic problems as bad if not worse than ours. At least with the Emirates you have the choice of Piccadilly, Victoria or mainline within a 10 minute walk and with it not being too far from WHL (about a dozen stops down the 259 bus route) we could still drink in our regular pubs if we wanted too after matches (or before late ones).
Thirdly: Current residents. Now I know that being a Spurs fan it’s in our genes to hate Arsenal but West Ham feel the same about us. As hard as it is for us to acknowledge most Arsenal fans no longer see us as any form of rival. They’ve been in a separate league to us for most of the last 10 years. They’re now, for the most part, as much a “prawn sandwich brigade” as Manchester Utd. There are, obviously, some old school rivalries but fortunately football has moved on for the majority of fans from the “olden days” of pitched battles between the 2 sets of supporters. West Ham, however, seem to have a hatred for Tottenham bordering on obsessive. Who’s fans was it that came down mob handed to smash up one of our pubs on a Wednesday lunchtime when we were facing each other in a Carling Cup match. Wasn’t Arsenal, it was West Ham! Now I’m old enough to have been there, run away from that and the thought of dealing with West Ham “fans” that have been banned from travelling to away games so will have nothing to do on the days that we use the ground other than hang around their local area and cause trouble quite frankly does not appeal. Several people on this site have already expressed reservations about taking their kids to games over there. West Ham are still trouble. It’s only a couple of years since they were in the “Championship” causing trouble with the likes of Millwall and Cardiff.
So in short, my dear Daniel, if you have the option of a choice between Emirates and Boleyn don’t just think the supporters won’t like it try asking them. The vast majority of fans will instinctively say NO WAY quite vehemently to a ground share with “the enemy” but logically and financially the benefits would be there for all to see once the initial shock had subsided.
Or is that your plan all along??