Spurs – What’s The Point of a Football Club?

March 4, 2011March 4, 2011 / Alan / 20 Comments

We the fans clasp the precious heritage and soul of our club in our hands. In a mixed up muddled up shook up world, we and only we provide continuity and unstinting commitment. Players and managers come and go. They may kiss the badge or effectively trample it underfoot, we hold it close to our hearts. We will be back next week.

In the build-up to big games, the media turn to us to validate the significance: the atmosphere builds, the ground is rocking, the town is alight. Not literally, presumably. Yet in the cold light of day, we will be told that football is a business. Be realistic – make money in order not only to be viable but also to compete in the quest for the Holy Grail, the sacred, some would say mythical, Next Level. No one is quite sure where that is or how to reach it, but we’re on our way. Teams field weakened sides in cup competitions because the bigger prize is to climb one or two greasy steps to mid-table mediocrity. Supporters kvetch about ticket prices. Crowds drop but that’s fine, as long as the drink is flowing in the corporate lounge. Success on the field is no longer the only goal. So what, exactly, is a football club for?

Until comparatively recently, there was a relatively straightforward answer. Each club was a private company run by a small board of directors who certainly controlled and probably owned the vast majority of the strictly limited shares. Well over 90% of the income was generated by fans coming through the gates. Those gates may have been ancient and rusting but the directors didn’t to need waste money on oil, let alone on any facilities inside the ground because the fans would come to see their team regardless. More success on the field, the fuller the terraces.

In the last 25 years, the number of stakeholders in the club, any club, has increased. The main newcomer is the shareholder because most of the big clubs are now public companies. Spurs were forerunners as Irving Scholar made us the first club to float on the Stock Exchange.

Now, when key decisions are made, as with any public company the interests of the shareholders must be taken into consideration, and that means profit. The composition of the board is different too. Directors are co-opted for their skills and influence. Most significantly, Tottenham Hotspur PLC is owned by ENIC, the English National Investment Company. The clue’s in the name – they need a return on that investment. Finally, football clubs still attract overbearing egos to their cosy boardroom, hoping to bask in the particular fame and glory that only our wonderful game can bestow. However, they are also doing what they do best, nose down on the trail of the filthy lucre. Alan Sugar is hardly revered for his achievements at Spurs, but despite a lack of success on the field and below capacity crowds, when he cashed in his chip he trousered a profit estimated to be anywhere between £25m and £35m overall. He saw an undervalued public company with assets and the capacity for growth.

Other stakeholders have elbowed their way into consideration. The F.A. always had a role in governing the game but it has been unceremoniously shoved aside by the all-conquering Premier League, whose aim is to generate as much money as possible for its members, rather than for the game as a whole. Sky TV is so close to the Prem, if we kicked the League up the backside, Murdoch would get concussion. The very fixture list is governed by their requirements. It’s the same in Europe. After a make-over, the revered European Cup, the ultimate prize, now rewards league failure with a lucrative and unnecessary group stage, so everyone has more chances of thrusting their noses into the trough.

This brave new world has distorted our priorities and our language. In the past, defining ‘success’ was easy enough – win something, if not, finish as far up the league as possible with a decent cup run thrown in for good measure. Now, success can mean other things. The prospect of winning a trophy, certainly of advancing as far as possible in a cup competition, is secondary to Premier league survival. The surprise is not that sides field a weakened team, it’s that anyone is surprised. Finishing fourth in most sports is finishing nowhere. In football, it opens the door to Aladdin’s cave. We fight, mewl and screech in the pursuit of also-ran status.

These issues apply to most top clubs in the country but at Spurs, recent events have thrown them into sharp relief. Setting aside the rights and wrongs of a move to Stratford, the debate created lines of battle. The Olympic site was the best decision in terms of the club’s finances, according to the board. Increased capacity and better infrastructure at an allegedly lower price was in the best interests of the club, as Daniel Levy put it. Many fans thought differently – it wasn’t in their interests, playing far from home, in another team’s territory in fact. Many would have gladly sacrificed the sanitised plazas with their cafes and leisure park and a trip on the Jubilee Line for a proper rebuilt football ground in our spiritual home, no matter how difficult it was to get a decent pre-match cappuccino.

In the long run, so the argument went, financial stability and increased income benefits us all because this can be re-invested in the team. However, it also means better dividends for shareholders and the club is a far more attractive prospect for potential buyers, should ENIC wish to sell, bearing in mind that the object of any investment company is to maximise the return on its investment.

In the debate, the name of another stakeholder was taken in vain, the local community. In the desire to get planning permission for the NDP, much was made of the improvements it would bring to a run-down area of London. As soon as that permission was granted, the people of Tottenham were unceremoniously and ruthlessly jettisoned, having served their purpose. Now all that mattered was money.

This conflict has always been there. Once it was a walk or bus-ride to the club for most spectators. These days, fans come from far and wide and whilst they bring business to local traders, they also bring disruption and traffic chaos. The anti-Stratford lobby looked to local MP David Lammy for support but he has a duty towards his constituents, not the likes of you and me. I was talking to a Spurs fan who has lived in the area for many years. Despite the much-publicised community work and appearances of the players in worthwhile local projects, he is scathing about their lack of genuine commitment to N17, saying the club has little or no connection to the locality and no genuine interest in the issue.

I believe the club has a duty to the community of which it is a part, regardless of whether it increases gates. The activities that do take place are valuable and should be extended. There’s the education project that brings football and education to local children and to those with disabilities, plus charity donations and the support of a football team for homeless people. Long may this continue, and should become a primary goal of the club, one of the benchmarks against which success can be measured.

My definition of success for the club is an organisation that has sufficient financial stability and the resources to function at the highest level of performance. Finish as high up the league as possible, and win something. This is not the be all and end all, however. The pursuit of profit and success on the filed at all costs must be mitigated by a sense of responsibility towards two other key stakeholders, the fans and the local community. If this means redistributing a proportion of our income or keeping a lid on ticket prices, then thinking twice about paying vastly inflated salaries, so be it.

Football and footballers are routinely vilified as poor role models for the young people who are in thrall to its charms. Watching my 11 year old grandson on a Sunday, their enthusiasm is infectious, However, there’s this one kid who hurls himself to the ground in agony if an opponent so much as touches him, others who mimic precisely bizarre gestures of open-palmed innocence if the ref blows against them. Ashley Cole brings a rifle to his workplace yet he’s free to play a few days later because it’s a vital game, one where one manager refuses to follow the rules that apply to all his peers and talk to a camera.

Football has a different, better message to deliver. Clubs should embrace the opportunities they have and exercise some social responsibility to their fans and their community and if this means success on the field or in the boardroom is harder to achieve, that’s fine. In fact, the League is so awash with money, this would cost but a fraction of their resources. Clubs can be role models too, of a organisation that understands its priorities, sticks to decent values and does the right thing. That would make us feel more part of what’s going on and ensure the club’s future by looking after the people who truly matter.

Spurs Lose the Olympic Stadium But the Real Conflict Has Only Just Begun

February 10, 2011 / Alan / 36 Comments

Politics. All down to politics, as this blog has been saying for a while. The BBC has ‘learned’ that West Ham will win the Olympic Stadium bidding process. In the language of politics, it’s a leak from a sound source, otherwise the BBC would not have gone so big on it. It will happen. Rejoice, oh rejoice unto the heavens! Yet the abiding feeling this morning is the realisation that far from being over, the real issue for Spurs fans, the plans that will affect our development in the next hundred years, that battle has only just begun.

This decision has nothing to do with football or the clubs. It’s a political settlement based on the promises around the Olympic Stadium that date from the bid itself, the legacy and the perceived public reaction if the nod went to an organisation prepared to knock down Britain’s showpiece. The arguments advocated by Levy or for that matter the odious Sullivan in yesterday’s Standard (“the decision is about a promise made in the Queen’s name”) count for virtually nothing. Coe and the athletics lobby as 2012 approaches, Cameron and Boris with cold shudders down their spines as they imagine themselves pictured with the wrecking ball, the government being seen to renege on Olympic undertakings in the most public of ways – these are the factors.

I’ll tell you why this choice was made – my office. Two blokes in the workplace, me and one other who’s not interested in football in the slightest. The rest are women, only one of whom is keen on sport. Lovely people, and yes of course women like football, but not these. There’s not a lot of footy banter going on.

Except over the stadium move. Everyone knows about it. They have no idea who Daniel Levy is, no club allegaince or the faintest notion of a legacy. But they all know Spurs plan to demolish the stadium and they are livid. Many of them blame me personally, even when I point out my opposition. To them, it’s simple: ‘How dare they knock down our stadium?’ Our stadium. There it is. Not Spurs’ or West Ham’s. Ours.

The fans of both clubs, and Orient’s too for that matter, are so embroiled in claim and counter-claim about territory, heritage, revenue streams and sightlines that we fail to appreciate the big picture so beloved of politicians in local and national government. The public want the Olympic Stadium. They are proud of it and proud Britain is hosting the Games. Woe betide a politician who ignores the public mood, whatever they may consider in private, especially so in these straitened times when election promises are returning to haunt members of the government.

In saying that the arguments advanced by both clubs have been so much pissing in the wind, it has to be acknowledged that West Ham have caught the public mood much better than Levy and his PR department. To me, the notion of the Porn Barons and Karren Brady as champions of the people is incomprehensible and frankly nauseating. However, they have successfully presented themselves as guardians of the Games and upholders of decent, honest values, of keeping promises and keeping faith with ‘the youth of London’, whilst at the same time burying the news that theirs is the option that uses public money. Levy meanwhile has been caught on his heels, belatedly desperate to catch up as West Ham set the agenda and the pace. It helps to have a column in the Sun, mind.

Above all, the public and the media like a simple story, and West Ham have successfully cast Spurs as the baddies. This debate about the future of sport in this country has been dramatised as a battle between good and evil and we have lost. Serious damage has been done to our reputation, unwarranted in my view because this was not what it was about at all, but real in the eyes of the public nonetheless. Levy the Loser is the tag he will find hard to shake off, never mind the public, in the eyes of the media and his fellow Premier League chairman. Remember this is the guy who drives a hard bargain and as the deadlines approach, does not blink. Until now.

My opposition to Stratford has been implacable from the start. I’m pleased with this decision but this is just the beginning, because it throws the long-term problems of THFC into sharp focus. If not Stratford, then where? The club cannot challenge the top teams in the long run in a ground that holds fewer than 37,000 people. Figures published today by Deloittes show that of the top 7 clubs, only one, L’arse, made a profit. Spurs have the dubious honour of making the least loss, about £6.5m compared with Man U at nearly £80m, Chelsea at £70m and Man City £121m. The matchday revenues at Spacecity North London are 5 times greater than ours, their profit £56m last year.

I hope we can return to the NDP: I understand the costs have risen but remain wary of Levy’s sudden change of tack. Let’s leave the specifics for another day. One thing is certain, that Daniel Levy remains the key figure who holds not only the balance sheet but also our hopes and dreams. There’s no one else we can turn to: he’s the man in charge. Yet after this mauling, I wonder if he still has the stomach to fight a series of new, possibly protracted battles. We need him to be at his best but he must be feeling battered, sore and bruised. Despite his decade or so in the hotseat, he’s never given the impression of being a passionate man on a mission. Whatever you think about Stratford, it will be hard for anyone to generate the motivation for the challenges to come. It would not be a surprise if he walked away.

This to my mind is the biggest problem Spurs and Spurs fans have to face in the coming weeks and months. If there is a lesson to be learned, it is that Levy should have done so much more to take the fans with him. Most accept his arguments that the club must change in some way. The fans and board united has to be the way forward. I’ve been an opponent, at times showing a degree of bitterness that is not part of my character, but Daniel, here’s my hand. Reach out and take it.

Stratford Decision Day Looms: No One Bothers To Ask The Fans

January 20, 2011January 20, 2011 / Alan / 36 Comments

A few seasons ago Tottenham Hotspur proudly celebrated 125 years of history. In 8 days time a decision will be taken that could shape its destiny for the next 125. It will be taken behind closed doors, by people eminent no doubt in their field but who are wholly unknown to the the public, who have little interest in football and none whatsoever in the future well-being of our club. The closest we get to a football man is the former managing director of Arsenal. Certainly no one has bothered to ask the fans.

The news that the Spurs board wanted to move to the Olympic site at Stratford seeped out gradually in the weeks before Christmas. There’s never been any formal announcement or acknowledgement. However, the detailed plans that were published as part of the bidding process for the post-2012 use of the Olympic Park indicated that far from this being a back-up should the redevelopment next door to White Hart Lane fall through, in fact the club had invested tens of millions in preparatory work. Moreover in AEG they had forged an unholy alliance with a major player in the leisure industry, for whom failure was not an option.

At the time, this caused a great deal of interest, or so I thought. Daniel Levy shrewdly kept a low profile but suddenly previously reticent board members like Sir Keith Mills were available to the media, talking up the possibilities of the site and as a secondary consideration mentioning that it represented a cost-effective option for Spurs. Other former members of the Olympic bidding process were co-opted to posts at the club.

TOMM signalled the dangers under the emotive headline: ‘Betrayal’. I make no apologies – football exercises my emotions like nothing else on this earth. However, the news did not spread amongst either Spurs fans or the public at large until two weeks ago. Despite regular dire warnings from the West Ham board, especially the media-savvy Karren Brady, it was the unlikely figure of the architect who has led Spurs’ design programme who put the cat amongst the pigeons. The media suddenly awoke to the consequences of the Spurs bid – the Olympic Stadium, the pride of Britain in 2012, was due for demolition. No athletics track either.

The fans picked up the mood too. Jolted forcibly out of their complacency, few were now able to claim that this was the Levy fall-back position. I was surprised and dismayed that so few Spurs supporters were unaware of the news but it has sent shockwaves through our worldwide community. It’s fair to say that by no means all the fans agree with my view that we should not move to Stratford, but complacency is no longer an option. Take a look, if you are brave enough, at the comments section of my previous piece on the stadium. Leaving aside the cyberwarrior bluster it reveals deep divisions not only in the debate around should we stay or should we go but also about the fundamental question of what it means to be a Spurs fan.

The fans are the heart and soul of the club. We were there 125 years ago, we’re here now and we will be here for as long as our team pulls on the white shirt. Players and chairmen come and go, we hand down the white shirt to our children and grandchildren.

Yet when it comes to this most momentous of decisions, we are the very last people to be consulted. We turn up through rain and shine, good times and bad, we pay our money and pay the wages. Right now, we don’t exist.

In stark contrast, the club were falling over themselves to consult during the planning process for the new stadium in N17, otherwise known as the Northumberland Development Project. I quote from the club website, as they worked towards the new stadium:

“ The previous application received strong backing from the local community and fans alike – with over 800 letters of support sent to Haringey Council from individuals, groups and businesses. The changes made directly reflect the Club’s desire to find the very best solution for the Club and the locality – and are the culmination of consultation and discussion with the Government’s Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE), English Heritage and other agencies as part of our desire to appeal to the widest possible audience.”

Fans were encouraged to contact Haringey Council. Local people and businesses were roped in. There was an online consultation exercise. They needed us then. Now, our opinions have no effect on the decision-takers. We have no value for the club, hence the deathly silence.

While I’m at it, here’s another quote, again from the club website:

A Flagship for Regeneration

All successful regeneration projects start with a single high profile ‘anchor’ scheme. The Northumberland Development Project represents an investment of hundreds of millions of pounds into North Tottenham and we believe has the potential to be a flagship for the wider regeneration of the area – attracting additional investment and securing significant benefits for the local community:

An even greater ability for the Tottenham Hotspur Foundation to address key social and community issues.
• World-class design which people will be proud to live near and visit.
• New affordable housing, both for rent and for key workers such as nurses and teachers.
• A significant investment in North Tottenham with a comprehensive scheme, not just a stadium.

Remembering our History

• The Club recognises the importance of remembering our history as a part of the new plans.

• We have the opportunity to re-house and re-locate key items which reflect and celebrate our proud history in Tottenham.

• We shall look to celebrate our past, display our memorabilia in a worthy environment and retain much of that which fans hold dear.

• This will be achieved both in the fabric of the buildings, in the new Club Museum and within the public spaces including the public square and lower courtyard.

• We intend to locate the famous Bill Nicholson Gates between the former White Hart pub and the Red House, which is the location of the current Bill Nicholson Way.

• We plan to put the famous cockerel, currently in our Club reception, on a plinth outside Warmington House as one of the first visible symbols fans will see as they approach from Seven Sisters.

• The old Club Board Room on the first floor of the Red House will be protected and retained and consideration given to bringing it back into use for appropriate Club meetings and Museum activities.

• We are also looking at how we decorate the gates and structures outside the stadium on the High Road and what other public art we commission across the site.

• We have established a Heritage Group which will consult on this work.

What price history and regeneration now? Literally: it has no value therefore our heritage is consigned to the dustbin, vacant rhetoric that has served its purpose and is now discarded.

Levy apparently lacks the courage to appear in public to discuss his plans. It’s ironic that this furore comes at a time when he has largely won over our support by the way he has run the club. For years his image was tarnished by poor judgement regarding the key appointment in any football club, the manager. Hoddle came and went, to be followed by what felt like the longest reign of any caretaker when, under David Pleat, we could so easily have been relegated. Santini failed, then Jol was removed because he was successful but not successful enough. With Ramos we plunged to the foot of the league until Our Harry came down from on high (well, the south coast) to save us all.

However, under Levy we have reaped the rewards of a consistent, prudent approach to money. He has resisted calls to make marquee signings, instead driving a series of hard bargains over salaries and fees. We’ve missed out on a few players in the process but the policy of buying good young players has more than made up for that as they mature. Also, the ludicrous problems experienced by Newcastle, Manchester United, West Ham and Liverpool are evidence enough to demonstrate the anguish caused by a potentially fatal combination of overbearing ego and an eye on the profit margin. Levy created sustainable financial stability and we owe him a lot.

Perhaps his biggest achievement, his personal legacy, was the new stadium. Finding a site near to the Lane was remarkable in overcrowded London. I don’t envy L’Arse their cavernous soulless spaceship but my goodness how I secretly admired the fact that stayed so close to home. Levy, however, trumped them, because we had a proper football ground, with stands close to the pitch and rising steeply plus an ‘end’. Thus the atmosphere of the Lane, its very essence, was preserved for generations to come.

This is why we felt safe with Levy, because this above all else proved he knew what football means. A proper ground, in our home! He consulted the fans, listened and responded. He knew what we wanted and did something about it. Now that bond lies in tatters. There’s no consultation now because he does not want to hear what we have to say. That’s why I feel so badly let down.

Levy would say that he’s being consistent, acting with the same financial prudence that has taken us this far. I certainly do not want to bankrupt the club, but we should do everything that is humanly possible to stay in N17, rather than cut and run to Stratford.

So it’s back to the Olympic Park Legacy Committee. A baroness, a Sir and a Lord, plus members with backgrounds in the local community, athletics, politics and planning. They’re so on the ball, they only realised a couple of days ago that one colleague, Tessa Sanderson, has links with Newham, i.e. a partner with one of the bids. They will make a recommendation next Friday, which then goes to Boris and the government for a final decision. It’s possible that on the 28th they can defer their choice to seek more information, so don’t hold your breath. This is fast becoming a political hot potato so they will proceed with caution.

As it stands, Spurs bid is seen as the stronger financially whilst West Ham scores on the legacy issues. How the balance tips is anyone’s guess. Nothing is emerging from the committee. Athletics is having a big push in favour of keeping the Olympic Stadium and this could be decisive, but it is only one of several factors the OPLC is duty bound to consider. As I said last week, the public will be baffled by any plan that knocks the stadium down and I suspect Cameron does not want to be remembered as the man with the wrecking ball.

Whatever happens, Spurs fans will not have a say, and nor for that matter will the supporters of west Ham. Fans left out once more. Earlier I said in passing that we should be heard because we are the ones who pay the wages, but the fact is, that is no longer true. The majority of a club’s income comes not from gate receipts but from TV and other rights and from the corporate sector. They’ll care when it comes to the noise in the big games, the club and Sky love us then, but right now we’re out in the cold looking in.

Spurs New Stadium – The Public Speaks

January 13, 2011January 20, 2011 / Alan / 88 Comments

Being a football fan in the 21^st century is an increasingly complex undertaking. The essence of game is mercifully unchanging, that heady brew of sweat and toil, undying passion and exquisite skill which creates this uniquely thrilling and involving spectacle.

Over the last, say, twenty years, most fans have grappled with different tactical formations and the jargon that comes with it. We happily discuss lone strikers with the spare man playing off him or the respective merits of 4-4-2 and 4-5-1. However, if we want to understand fully the modern context, we have to become financial experts too. Money used to mean wages and transfer fees, now it’s income streams, revenue flow, capital expenditure and television rights, all to properly grasp the decisions taken by our clubs

Spurs fans must come to grips with a further dimension to this complicated reality. As the debate about our new stadium intensifies, we have been thrust headlong into the realm of politics because that’s where our fate will be decided, regardless of the wishes of our board.

Yesterday a statement by the leading architect in Spurs’ plans propelled the stadium debate into a major news story. This in itself was somewhat strange because the essential elements that have gathered attention, that Spurs are very keen to move to Stratford and that they intend to demolish the Olympic Stadium, are nothing new. This emerged well before Christmas and were discussed in this very blog.

However, it’s galvanised the whole debate. It’s as if everyone involved has suddenly woken up to what has been going on. Within the Spurs community, it has surprised me how many people have expressed astonishment that the board are deadly serious about the move, preferring to believe until now that it was merely a bargaining ploy to lean on Haringey and TFL. This has been clear for at least two months now, ever since AEG came on board as partners. One reason for the comparative lack of protest about the move, the laudable efforts of the We Are N17 campaign notwithstanding, is now obvious – complacency.

Of greater significance in terms of the final outcome is the reaction amongst people who are not Spurs fans, in particular the realisation that we plan to demolish the stadium. The Daily Mail led on “Spurs Under Fire for ‘Diabolical ‘ Plans…”, while the head of an athletics body Ed Warner was incredulous on the Today Programme this morning that anyone would knock down a stadium that cost 500m of taxpayers money to build and will be the focus of the entire world for two weeks in 2012.

The implications of the board’s plans have hit home. The ambivalence of many Spurs fans has, judging by the boards and social networking sites, hardened to opposition. However, our divisions have the impact of a family spat over who does the washing up compared with the force of the debate in the public arena.

All the attention thus far has focussed on the Spurs board. They undoubtedly prefer Stratford, but the final decision does not rest in their hands. Soon the Olympic Park Legacy Committee meet to agree their preferred bidder, then the final decision will be taken, probably in early March. They will take into account all the non-football interest groups and criteria, and if those of us who want to stay in Tottenham are to have any real impact we would do well to direct our energies in this direction.

As its name implies, the Legacy Committee are charged with evaluating the plans for the Olympic site in terms of what it can do for London and for athletics in the medium and long term. Much of the funding was secured on this basis.

Spurs’ have much the stronger bid in financial terms but it starts to crumble when it comes to the legacy. West Ham’s bid has close links to Newham Council and the community. Also, as Tottenham MP David Lammy has emphasised in a parliamentary debate this week, the legacy is for London as a whole, not just Newham and if Spurs move, N17 loses its biggest employer and area will be blighted.

Further, there’s a requirement that athletics has future. Belatedly Spurs have undertaken to refurbish Crystal Palace but that concession is a sign of weakness in their bid. West Ham want to play in the Olympic Stadium – good luck to them, the track will be retained which does nothing for football spectators – but it remains a worthy home for British Athletics, and a year before the 2012 Games, they become a powerful lobby. Ian Dale, Tory blogger and West Ham fan, says Seb Coe is against the move. I always preferred Steve Ovett but Seb is a powerful man these days with the establishment and a former Tory MP, close to the government.

Let’s stop and consider this for a moment. The public see this currently as a matter between two football clubs, if any of them are actually aware of the issue at all, let alone care. Think of the outcry if it is announced that the Stadium is to be demolished. All the public money that’s gone into it, the attention for Britain’s hopes and dreams, a pile of rubble. Any notion that Spurs are generating cash for the public purse in return will surely cut little ice. A public poll showed 80% were against Spurs plans. There will be an outcry.

Also, imagine this. Picture David Cameron announcing this to a disbelieving electorate. Does he want to be remembered as the PM during Britain’s most glorious sporting heritage of modern times, or the bloke who pushed the button on the wrecking ball? Politics and the Olympics are inextricably linked, whether we like it or not.

I wrote about this last month, twice, and my views haven’t changed. Spurs should make every conceivable effort to remain in Tottenham. I’ve been amazed with the nonchalance that so many fans have accepted the move. Not been actively in favour necessarily, but just acquiesced. Tottenham is our home, our heritage, and to me that’s priceless. If that is an emotional argument, I make no apologies, because football is all about emotion. There’s nothing rational or logical about it. Football is nothing without a soul, and our soul rests in that little part of north London.

The arguments raised yesterday by the architect (interesting how they fronted him up, not anyone from the board or the advisors they have been recruiting from the Olympic bid committee) stressed the financial benefits. Easy access by tube to central London, Canary Wharf is handy for corporate use…I know we have to make money but using these factors as the primary drivers behind the future of an 127 year old football club still sticks in the throat.

However in the end these things are parochial for us Spurs fans to bicker over, The future of the club depends on the political forces at play. The announcement yesterday has forced this issue into the public domain and if it stays there, that’s our best hope for staying in north London.

Maybe we should unite with our Boleyn brethren. Link arms, lace daisies in each other’s hair and call ourselves sisters. Right now, many of us have more in common with them than we do with our own board. Tottenham Hotspur Football Club: the club that knocked down Britain’s Olympic Stadium. Now there’s a legacy to tell our kids about.