• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

THST/THFC Board to Board Meeting Minutes

#1 question should have been.. Whats the point of Joe Lewis being an owner. Would we be better of with an owner willing to spend there own money on club infrastructure and what is the selling price he is willing to accept. (I realise thats 3)

After reading the minutes I came away as I always do regarding this trust v Levy meetings.. not really better off, still told stuff on a need to know basis and pretty much comes across as the whole thing being a chore for the board to do this than being happy and open to the fans.
 
Superhudd said:
#1 question should have been.. Whats the point of Joe Lewis being an owner. Would we be better of with an owner willing to spend there own money on club infrastructure and what is the selling price he is willing to accept. (I realise thats 3)

After reading the minutes I came away as I always do regarding this trust v Levy meetings.. not really better off, still told stuff on a need to know basis and pretty much comes across as the whole thing being a chore for the board to do this than being happy and open to the fans.
Click to expand...

What would be the point in asking a question that will not and cannot be answered? It would only make THST seem ignorant, naive and lacking in any credibility.

I agree with you that there is limited value in these meetings. But it is still better than to have no meetings at all. There is a two way flow of information. The fans are, even if only very slightly, more informed than they were. And the club has a much better idea of what the fans are thinking and what would make them happier.

These are small things, granted. But better than no things at all.
 
from our point of view their isn't "a point" to joe Lewis being the owner, that's not the structure we have in place

we are owned by an investment company, Joe Lewis is at the head of that but things wouldn't be any different if it was a 10 man board

I'm impressed Spurs still take part in these to be honest, the trust have to step reasonably carefully to maintain the access
 
milo said:
That only gives you an option on one side . There is no room to go back further at the Park Lane or Paxton. We'd have longer with reduced capacity and an only marginally bigger stadium at the end of it if we had taken this route.
Click to expand...

Sorry I didn't post in full what I wanted to!!!

Rotate the pitch.

We could go all the way back to the high road then, Paxton and Park Lane stands then come in towards the pitch.

There may even be a long winded way of knocking down the east stand in close season, extending the pitch, then doing each stand a season at a time.

Buy Paxton Road while we are at it and turn it into a toll road.

Also, build a sheet metal works franchise out on the high street, offer it to Arsways biggest competitor and subsidise prices. We've got £25m to burn on that little enterprise.
 
jimmyb said:
What would be the point in asking a question that will not and cannot be answered? It would only make THST seem ignorant, naive and lacking in any credibility.
Click to expand...

IMO with what's happened the last two months I think that

1. We have the right to know.
2. Lewis is on a rope bridge akin to an Indiana Jones movie whereby the bridge has snapped and we are taking aim with our arrows on the other side.
3. He is simply a greedy qunt. Under his ownership we have seen the value to shareholders diminish, allowing him to hoover up a vast controlling percentage on the cheap and then see him apparently demand nearly 20x his input.

yes.. As a club we are better off, but IMO, and as we are told we are performing where we should be per money income.
 
galeforce said:
from our point of view their isn't "a point" to joe Lewis being the owner, that's not the structure we have in place

we are owned by an investment company, Joe Lewis is at the head of that but things wouldn't be any different if it was a 10 man board

I'm impressed Spurs still take part in these to be honest, the trust have to step reasonably carefully to maintain the access
Click to expand...

They know they have to.. Or be lynched. As said.. the feeling it is a chore than a pleasure can be smelt north of Watford.

The not allowing the levy out flags smacks of and is no different to a North Korea type regime controlling what everyone is allowed to do and say. I hope those do the same outside the ground where freedom of speech is allowed.
 
Last edited:
they are a private company, they don't have to at all

they can ban white t-shirts in the ground if they want, let alone flags
 
THFC reiterated that this was not a straightforward matter of paying an excessive amount.

Is it me, or is there a clear implication here that Archway Steel have an ulterior motive, which is not about maximising their compensation from Spurs. Conspiracy paranoia? Why would Abramovich - or the Arsenal owner - NOT fund Archway to cause huge delays to a rival organisation? Certainly Abramovich could do this quite legally - if he gifted money to Archway's owners, and they happened to want to cause as many delays as possible...I would love to have a look at the owner's private bank balance right now!
 
2. Lewis is on a rope bridge akin to an Indiana Jones movie whereby the bridge has snapped and we are taking aim with our arrows on the other side.

relay? i am sure he feels the heat sat on his yacht in the Bahamas.
 
chicken_badge said:
Sorry I didn't post in full what I wanted to!!!

Rotate the pitch.

We could go all the way back to the high road then, Paxton and Park Lane stands then come in towards the pitch.

There may even be a long winded way of knocking down the east stand in close season, extending the pitch, then doing each stand a season at a time.

Buy Paxton Road while we are at it and turn it into a toll road.

Also, build a sheet metal works franchise out on the high street, offer it to Arsways biggest competitor and subsidise prices. We've got £25m to burn on that little enterprise.
Click to expand...

I would imagine that would involve us playing away from WHL for even longer than the current plans require.
 
chicken_badge said:
Sorry I didn't post in full what I wanted to!!!

Rotate the pitch.

We could go all the way back to the high road then, Paxton and Park Lane stands then come in towards the pitch.

There may even be a long winded way of knocking down the east stand in close season, extending the pitch, then doing each stand a season at a time.

Buy Paxton Road while we are at it and turn it into a toll road.

Also, build a sheet metal works franchise out on the high street, offer it to Arsways biggest competitor and subsidise prices. We've got £25m to burn on that little enterprise.
Click to expand...

Something along these lines might be possible if Archway won their appeal. A swap with the school with land where the new stadium is planned might be possible and I assume Haringey would be willing to cooperate with road changes. But it would take much longer (at least two seasons) so would be a last resort.

On the potential MK move, I assume this is the fail safe option. As a result of the meeting, we now know for certain that there are four options being explored. Wembley, the OS and Upton Park all have substantial problems so having a relatively safe option makes sense. I'd imagine Wembley and the OS top the list, but it is reasonable to work on the assumption it might not be possible.
 
milo said:
Planning regs are more rigorous now and it is a pretty tight footprint. We'd have to have a lot more space for access to get it through now.
Click to expand...

Right ok. What about the West/East though? I always thought they could be easily extended by building into the car park and Worcester Road? Wish it could be done.
 
Superhudd said:
The not allowing the levy out flags smacks of and is no different to a North Korea type regime controlling what everyone is allowed to do and say. I hope those do the same outside the ground where freedom of speech is allowed.
Click to expand...

Sorry but that is really silly, have you always felt persecuted in you life 8-[
 
What's all this 'maximum of 40,000 nonsense? Sugar had plans drawn up for a new 3 tier, 18,000 capacity East stand that was to overhang Worcester ave and would've taken capacity to 44,000.

An identical West stand would therefore have resulted in a 56,000 capacity stadium.

It might not have been optimal, cost effective or preferred, but to say 40,000 is our max at WHL is surely simply not true?
 
Finney Is Back said:
What's all this 'maximum of 40,000 nonsense? Sugar had plans drawn up for a new 3 tier, 18,000 capacity East stand that was to overhang Worcester ave and would've taken capacity to 44,000.

An identical West stand would therefore have resulted in a 56,000 capacity stadium.

It might not have been optimal, cost effective or preferred, but to say 40,000 is our max at WHL is surely simply not true?
Click to expand...

It's not the adding of seats that will boost turnover, it's new and improved VIP facilities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back