-
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
Tottenham Hotspur Stadium - Licence To Stand
- Thread starter Jordinho
- Start date
JerusalemMan
Chris Perry
Well, the lift itself is now done. Just a matter of adding all the pieces around the cable skeleton that is up there.
ricky2tricky4city
Steffen Freund
Is the new East stand the equivalent of the old West stand, in that all the bigwigs will be sitting on that side now?
West Stand will still be the main stand in that respect just now the East is more comparable
Gazza
Frederic Kanoute
West stand will have the most expensive seats with the directors and exclusive tunnel club arrangements.
The east stand is cheaper and the equivalent seat price reflect that
jts1882
Dean Richards
The East Stand prices look the same as the West Stand, including the expensive £1995 seats at the front of the central upper in blocks 504/505 (East) and 525/527 (West).
The removal of the different pricing is why the THST can claim increases up to 70% as equivalent positions in the East are much more expensive.
The removal of the different pricing is why the THST can claim increases up to 70% as equivalent positions in the East are much more expensive.
Glenda's Legs
Paul Walsh
Meaning the claim is not baseless, even though the comparison is not like for like. The Trust are serving their impacted Members by making noise about this.
I doubt there is anyone naive enough not to have expected prices to increase but for some either a hefty increase has to be absorbed or they will have to adapt to another less preferred area of the new stadium or give up their ST. It's easy to say it's a choice and you can cut back elsewhere, but everyone's circumstances are different and some people might have been doing that anyway and there'll be a limit
The tone of Martin Cloake's article may not be ideal but I think it is borne out of frustration with lack of response from the club to their requests (given that they are the group chosen for fan engagement)
I think the club could have played this better by being more open with the Trust as to their plans - even in fairly general terms without specific price points being shared. This could easily be done under an NDA if necessary and would have allowed the club an opportunity to condition expectations, using the Trust as a conduit.
It may not have made the impact any less but might have softened the blow.
jts1882
Dean Richards
The claim is certainly not baseless. I understand that long-term season ticket holders used to a particular view from the East Stand could be upset about being forced to move or face a large increase. I also think the club could have done something to help here, especially for those with a long history with the club (say a phase discount based on number of years).
However, the Guardian article presented the large increases in a misleading way. There was no context, no attempt to point out that this was a special case for one part of the ground. Instead they gave the impression that prices for some seats all over the ground were going up by 70%. The vast majority of the readers of the article would not have understood that the ticket price increases for most people are more like 10-15% (only a guess here).
Apart from that, I think the biggest mistake of the trust was taking a payment from a national newspaper to write a negative piece on the club. I can't see a way back from this. The club have never been strong on providing information unless they see a direct benefit. For instance, after a bit of prodding the information on the new stadium, the cameras, etc., has been done very well and led to some excellent publicity. The interactive map showing available seats was also very informative, although they seem to have removed this today.
However, the Guardian article presented the large increases in a misleading way. There was no context, no attempt to point out that this was a special case for one part of the ground. Instead they gave the impression that prices for some seats all over the ground were going up by 70%. The vast majority of the readers of the article would not have understood that the ticket price increases for most people are more like 10-15% (only a guess here).
Apart from that, I think the biggest mistake of the trust was taking a payment from a national newspaper to write a negative piece on the club. I can't see a way back from this. The club have never been strong on providing information unless they see a direct benefit. For instance, after a bit of prodding the information on the new stadium, the cameras, etc., has been done very well and led to some excellent publicity. The interactive map showing available seats was also very informative, although they seem to have removed this today.
They're naive mugs if they weren't paid for it and there's a clear conflict of interest if they were.
ShipOfTheseus
Clint Dempsey
They were paid, because the Grauniad has to pay CiF contributors for complicated NUJ reasons. The authors donated the money to the Trust. I's difficult to see where the conflict of interest is.
Earning money by putting out public stories that could damage the reputation or the standing of the club. That's a very clear conflict of interest to me.
If the trust donated the whole lot to a charity (not themselves) then I have no issue with it. Being paid by a third party to publicly criticise the club is clearly an issue.
jts1882
Dean Richards
Martin Cloake is co-chair of the Tottenham Hotspur Supporters’ Trust. The fee for this article is being donated to the Trust.
The author was writing in his capacity as co-chair of the THST; otherwise, why mention his position if it is just a personal opinion. He also claimed to be representing the fans who had contacted the Trust. The money went to the organisation making the complaints. You can't get a clearer conflict of interest.
It would have been much better if he had given an interview with the Guardian. They could then have written a piece and asked for a response from the club, so both sides are given. The club would probably just have given a short statement so he would still have had most of the article to make the Trust''s case. Instead, only one side was presented and, as I said above, I think he misrepresented the case.
I think the trust do a difficult job. They spend time and effort, with little thanks. The club are notoriously reluctant to give anything away unless they have to. The THST have built a conduit to the club, which at least partially bridges the information gap. They do get valuable information on some topics and get stone-walled on others, but they have to expect that. I can't see how that article will improve matters going forward.
The author was writing in his capacity as co-chair of the THST; otherwise, why mention his position if it is just a personal opinion. He also claimed to be representing the fans who had contacted the Trust. The money went to the organisation making the complaints. You can't get a clearer conflict of interest.
It would have been much better if he had given an interview with the Guardian. They could then have written a piece and asked for a response from the club, so both sides are given. The club would probably just have given a short statement so he would still have had most of the article to make the Trust''s case. Instead, only one side was presented and, as I said above, I think he misrepresented the case.
I think the trust do a difficult job. They spend time and effort, with little thanks. The club are notoriously reluctant to give anything away unless they have to. The THST have built a conduit to the club, which at least partially bridges the information gap. They do get valuable information on some topics and get stone-walled on others, but they have to expect that. I can't see how that article will improve matters going forward.
ShipOfTheseus
Clint Dempsey
The fee would have been pretty small. GNM pays £310 per kiloword. The article is 800 words, so would have earned just under £250. That's not really enough to corrupt anyone.
Gazza
Frederic Kanoute
Ever been anywhere in South East Asia?
ShipOfTheseus
Clint Dempsey
Fair point. Cloake is a UK-based scrivener, though. Chief sub at a customer publishing outfit, with a lot of sidelines to boot, according to his website. Probably wouldn't touch anything new for less than a grand.
He's not like one of the ragamuffins in a Manila basement who are chained to their desks for twenty hour stints populating Toby Alderweireld's social media feed, rewarded for click-throughs and shares with very small bowls of rice. Now, getting one of those benighted kids to put up an anodyne picture that nonetheless causes a Glory-Glory meltdown would cost considerably less than £250 - you're absolutely right on that score.
Lemonade Money
Les Medley
You've replaced the backdrop, but fundamentally it remains the same question.
PochettinoPochettinoPochettino
Serge Aurier
awesome dawson
Mitchell Thomas
The new WHL will look good with Champions league anthem nights. 