And, we’re off.......2018/2019

[MegaSteve]

I get where your coming from, but if they were only over 1 or 2 matches maximum out of circa 20+, then I think there has to be some leeway, however, they can't give a date currently and they are definitely well into October by all accounts and possibly won't play at 'home' until early November, if it all goes to plan?

So yes, with these circumstances of not being able to give a firm date I think they should have to abandon the new stadium and adopt Wembley for their home for another season.

Gosh, I was getting a little concerned there as it, at first, appeared a blue was about to cut the spuds some slack...

 

[Orikoru]

If it's a rule then it has to be abided by, as soon as you start giving special dispensation then you may as well throw the rules away!

Well, yeah, throw that rule away by all means.

Did it make a difference when Spurs intially moved into Wembley ? Yes , same with West Ham into the London Stadium - teams it seems take a little time to adjust to new surroundings and Arsenal had the same when they went into the Emirates, so some teams will face Spurs at Wembley - bigger pitch , different atmosphere, energy sapping and Spurs used to those surroundings and some teams will face Spurs in the new stadium - different pitch , different atmospher , Spurs maybe not used to eat. - lots of small variables that can affect teams , so to ensure everything is that same for all teams that visit Spurs they should be at one stadium as a home venue to ensure there is no advantage or disadvantage for any team

Right now it’s clear that Spurs have tried to squeeze in a new build in a year and have messed up - fans will be affected by this both Home and away and they still don’t know when it will be ready. It’s a bit of mess and the Prem should put the foot down and it’s one ground only

I think you're just being daft because it's Spurs. If the advantage or disadvantage can't be quantified, indeed we're not even sure if it an advantage or a disadvantage, then why lose sleep over it. We're building a new ground and when it's ready, we'll move into it. Pointless making us wait a further six months or whatever just because 'rules is rules'.

If anything you seemed to be suggesting that us moving to the new stadium may actually be a disadvantage for us, since we'll have to adjust to it again, so if we're happy to take that risk then let's crack on.

Ultimately two teams play football on a grass pitch with a goal at each end. Let's not blow it out of proportion.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Well, yeah, throw that rule away by all means.



I think you're just being daft because it's Spurs. If the advantage or disadvantage can't be quantified, indeed we're not even sure if it an advantage or a disadvantage, then why lose sleep over it. We're building a new ground and when it's ready, we'll move into it. Pointless making us wait a further six months or whatever just because 'rules is rules'.

If anything you seemed to be suggesting that us moving to the new stadium may actually be a disadvantage for us, since we'll have to adjust to it again, so if we're happy to take that risk then let's crack on.

Ultimately two teams play football on a grass pitch with a goal at each end. Let's not blow it out of proportion.

Seems the point has gone straight over your head

Rules are Rules - well yes they should be followed to ensure fair play for all , makes no difference if it’s Spurs or any other team. The situation has been created by Spurs and they should now face the consequences that have been created - one Home stadium only , doesn’t matter if Spurs have to wait 6 months to play in the stadium - it’s their own fault if that happens

And as for the advantage/disadvantaged etc - it doesn’t matter if you can’t see them or feel them because it won’t matter to you but it could to the players - the rules are in place to ensure a level playing field

As for the Spurs taking time to settle - say Liverpool play Spurs at Wembley - Spurs are settled players play well and Spurs get a result. The first game in the new stadium is against Chelsea - Spurs are not used to playing in unknown surroundings and struggle - Chelsea get the result - is it fair that Chelsea and Liverpool play away matches against Spurs in totally different stadiums in different surroundings - sorry but Spurs and indeed any team should play all their home games at the same stadium , it’s a rule to ensure as level playing field as you can get in regards the stadium.

 

[Kellfire]

Seems the point has gone straight over your head

Rules are Rules - well yes they should be followed to ensure fair play for all , makes no difference if it’s Spurs or any other team. The situation has been created by Spurs and they should now face the consequences that have been created - one Home stadium only , doesn’t matter if Spurs have to wait 6 months to play in the stadium - it’s their own fault if that happens

And as for the advantage/disadvantaged etc - it doesn’t matter if you can’t see them or feel them because it won’t matter to you but it could to the players - the rules are in place to ensure a level playing field

As for the Spurs taking time to settle - say Liverpool play Spurs at Wembley - Spurs are settled players play well and Spurs get a result. The first game in the new stadium is against Chelsea - Spurs are not used to playing in unknown surroundings and struggle - Chelsea get the result - is it fair that Chelsea and Liverpool play away matches against Spurs in totally different stadiums in different surroundings - sorry but Spurs and indeed any team should play all their home games at the same stadium , it’s a rule to ensure as level playing field as you can get in regards the stadium.

If it's true that the clubs voted to allow it, then you're in disagreement with the majority of the teams.

 

[Liverbirdie]

Seems the point has gone straight over your head

Rules are Rules - well yes they should be followed to ensure fair play for all , makes no difference if it’s Spurs or any other team. The situation has been created by Spurs and they should now face the consequences that have been created - one Home stadium only , doesn’t matter if Spurs have to wait 6 months to play in the stadium - it’s their own fault if that happens

And as for the advantage/disadvantaged etc - it doesn’t matter if you can’t see them or feel them because it won’t matter to you but it could to the players - the rules are in place to ensure a level playing field

As for the Spurs taking time to settle - say Liverpool play Spurs at Wembley - Spurs are settled players play well and Spurs get a result. The first game in the new stadium is against Chelsea - Spurs are not used to playing in unknown surroundings and struggle - Chelsea get the result - is it fair that Chelsea and Liverpool play away matches against Spurs in totally different stadiums in different surroundings - sorry but Spurs and indeed any team should play all their home games at the same stadium , it’s a rule to ensure as level playing field as you can get in regards the stadium.

Other teams have had special dispensation before (including ours) and thats sometimes only for re-building one stand. Total LARGE rebuilds may become more prevalent in the prem, so I think the rule needs looking at.

I think this conversation between the FA and Spurs should have taken place 2-3 years ago, though, as was always a good possibility.

I dont agree with the one ground only rule per se, but should allow for some leeway - maybe you can play at a maximum of 2 grounds in a year, and one must be for a minimum of 3 months to alleviate this problem.

 

[pbrown7582]

If it's true that the clubs voted to allow it, then you're in disagreement with the majority of the teams.

the clubs did vote and agree it which is why even though there is a 1 stadium rule Spurs were always planning to play games at wembley and tottenham hotspur stadium this season.

If its so unfair why were Fulham being forced to play at wembley before the safety fault/delay occured.

So is it fair teams can request extra away matches at the start of the season resulting in more home matches in the run in?

 

[pbrown7582]

Well, yeah, throw that rule away by all means.



I think you're just being daft because it's Spurs. If the advantage or disadvantage can't be quantified, indeed we're not even sure if it an advantage or a disadvantage, then why lose sleep over it. We're building a new ground and when it's ready, we'll move into it. Pointless making us wait a further six months or whatever just because 'rules is rules'.

If anything you seemed to be suggesting that us moving to the new stadium may actually be a disadvantage for us, since we'll have to adjust to it again, so if we're happy to take that risk then let's crack on.

Ultimately two teams play football on a grass pitch with a goal at each end. Let's not blow it out of proportion.

commom sense approach not allowed on this thread!!!!

 

[MegaSteve]

Large stadia may well become history...
As, by all accounts, clubs can make their money without all the hassle of 'in house' fans...



Also, in the news, [though I've not seen it]...
Samuel Allardyce is being highly critical of Unai Emery's tactics...
Which, I am finding mildly amusing [if true]...

 

[Orikoru]

Seems the point has gone straight over your head

Rules are Rules - well yes they should be followed to ensure fair play for all , makes no difference if it’s Spurs or any other team. The situation has been created by Spurs and they should now face the consequences that have been created - one Home stadium only , doesn’t matter if Spurs have to wait 6 months to play in the stadium - it’s their own fault if that happens

And as for the advantage/disadvantaged etc - it doesn’t matter if you can’t see them or feel them because it won’t matter to you but it could to the players - the rules are in place to ensure a level playing field

As for the Spurs taking time to settle - say Liverpool play Spurs at Wembley - Spurs are settled players play well and Spurs get a result. The first game in the new stadium is against Chelsea - Spurs are not used to playing in unknown surroundings and struggle - Chelsea get the result - is it fair that Chelsea and Liverpool play away matches against Spurs in totally different stadiums in different surroundings - sorry but Spurs and indeed any team should play all their home games at the same stadium , it’s a rule to ensure as level playing field as you can get in regards the stadium.

I still think you're overplaying the difference it makes. Ultimately if Liverpool have to travel down to Wembley or travel down to the new stadium, it's still 11 v 11 on a grass pitch.

Large construction jobs take time, they can rarely be pinned down to the exact finish date and often overrun. Any team building a new stadium should be allowed to use it when it's ready. To say otherwise is just churlish really.

 

[pbrown7582]

Large stadia may well become history...
As, by all accounts, clubs can make their money without all the hassle of 'in house' fans...



Also, in the news, [though I've not seen it]...
Samuel Allardyce is being highly critical of Unai Emery's tactics...
Which, I am finding mildly amusing [if true]...

he wasn't impressed Arsenal continued to POFTB with a full press on, interview on Talk sport breakfast

 

[USER1999]

he wasn't impressed Arsenal continued to POFTB with a full press on, interview on Talk sport breakfast

So a 3 time winner of the Europa league, and winner of ligue 1, amongst others, should listen to fat Sam because? He has won nothing. Arsenal need to learn how to play the way Emery wants them to, and fast. City was never about winning. It was about learning, and there will be much from that match to learn from, and work on.

Lumping a long ball to get a result might get that result, but that is doubtful against city anyway, but as a learning experience it offers zip. Fat Sam should just shut up, he is making himself look stupid. Sorry, more stupid.

 

[Dan2501]

Not particularly anything wrong with Emery's tactics but it was like Wenger had picked the team. Guendouzi should never have started ahead of Torreira or even Elneny and Leno should definitely have started ahead of Cech. Maitland-Niles at LB was an interesting one as well but I guess that was down to a lack of options and also shows that Arsenal's depth is severely lacking as it has the past 5 years or so, it's going to take a long time before this squad is sorted out.

 

[MegaSteve]

... it's going to take a long time before this squad is sorted out.

I bloomin' hope not... Would like to see how it goes with some of the newer additions on the park...

 

[Dan2501]

I bloomin' hope not...

It is. There's still so much deadwood on expensive contracts - the likes of :

Welbeck
Xhaka
Elneny
Jenkinson

There's not enough quality back-up in defence (this has been an issue for years under Wenger), still reliant on Xhaka from a defensive midfield perspective who Gary Neville rightly commented looks like he's going to get sent off everytime he plays, Ozil seems to be getting less and less effective as the seasons go on, the central defenders are still too slow, the wingers aren't willing to put the effort in to track-back (Mkhitaryan had no interest in defending against City, he was dreadful).

Emery has made positive steps bringing in a better goalkeeper, an upgrade on Mertesacker, a right-back that can actually defend and a very talented young deep-lying all-round midfielder but it's not enough, and it's going to take so long to get the core of this squad playing in a way that's going to win things again, it got so bad under Wenger it's a huge job to fix. The mindset of the core-squad alone is going to be so difficult to change. Emery has a massive task on his hands, I just hope for his sake he is given the time and money to do it.

 

[Orikoru]

Absolutely daft to judge Emery on the team he put out against City. I was surprised Cech kept his place, and Xhaka has no business being in the Premier League let alone the Arsenal team, but to have your first match against a dominant side like City is a baptism of fire, no matter what team he put out they would have lost that one. Tough game this weekend against Chelsea, so if they lose that there will obviously be more knee-jerk reactions saying nothing has changed since Wenger. After that though they have 7 or 8 winnable games on the bounce, so those are the ones to judge him on. I think he's made good signings, he needs a bit of time to get them playing his way - judging him off a first game losing to the best team in the country isn't going to help.

 

[MegaSteve]

It is.

He didn't start enough of his 'new wood' for me [Torreira/Leno]... Assume he's brought those in as he feels they'll be better inclined to play his 'system'... Want to see more of them on the park... Hopefully Saturday... In for a penny.....

 

[PJ87]

Spurs will have a very tough season for me. No-one brought in was already a massive risk. However this stadium situation is going to A. Create fan unrest and B. It’s hard to move stadiums into home situations. With it happening twice throughout the season could affect on the pitch for sure

I don’t think too 4 is gonna happen this year will be close tho

 

[MegaSteve]

no matter what team he put out they would have lost that one.

Then put out the team you feel best likely to play the way you want...

 

[pbrown7582]

Then put out the team you feel best likely to play the way you want...

Maybe given pre season and the players he’s worked with the most that’s what he did do?

 

[MegaSteve]

Maybe given pre season and the players he’s worked with the most that’s what he did do?

That would be concerning... Playing the 'old guard' ahead of the new intake...
Assuming they were brought in with the belief/thought they were/are better suited to the 'new system'...