Spurs aim for new stadium by 2012

[Fredo]

How about arguably the most important cost of it all Dom, carbon footprint?

[dom9]

Not sure what you mean not paying to knock it down, are they repaying the full cost of what it cost the tax payer to build ?

If they are, then i'll go with the lack of a promised 'Legacy' point, bloody disgracefull!

They aren't repaying the original cost. Why would they?

How about arguably the most important cost of it all Dom, carbon footprint?

What about it?

[Fredo]

What about it?

Well, the harm it does to our atmosphere etc ... Global warming and the UK's contribution to it if the government does allow this?

[dom9]

Well, the harm it does to our atmosphere etc ... Global warming and the UK's contribution to it if the government does allow this?

Well, it is not green, but should we stop all development?

One stadium (x 2) will not make a big difference to the planet.

Please don't take this personally, but how do you reconcile your wife's job with the environment issue?

[Vermilion]

They aren't repaying the original cost. Why would they?

So that's my point, the original cost was payed by the tax payer, us, so it is costing us something, a total waste of money just so Spurs can do what they want.

[dom9]

So that's my point, the original cost was payed by the tax payer, us, so it is costing us something, a total waste of money just so Spurs can do what they want.

That cost is to stage the Olympics, not for Spurs to do what they want.

If you don't like the Olympics coming to London, then say so. That appears to be your argument.

[Fredo]

Well, it is not green, but should we stop all development?

One stadium (x 2) will not make a big difference to the planet.

Please don't take this personally, but how do you reconcile your wife's job with the environment issue?

It does add up. My wife's job? In what sense?

[dom9]

It does add up. My wife's job? In what sense?

In the sense that she flies around the world in aeroplanes everyday.

[Neil Young]

It does add up. My wife's job? In what sense?

You remember inventing your 'wife', surely?

[dom9]

You remember inventing your 'wife', surely?

[Vermilion]

That cost is to stage the Olympics, not for Spurs to do what they want.

If you don't like the Olympics coming to London, then say so. That appears to be your argument.

Eh, i don't like the Olymipics, riiight.

My argument is, that we pay for an olympic stadium, then it gets knocked down, so Spurs can build another one, i would rather that stadium remained , with running track, to host athletic events, and help british athletes, that's how much i hate the er.. Olympics in London.

If you can't see that's a waste of tax payers money, knocking down what we paid to build..then so be it.

I'd say your a closet Spurs fan, why not just come out and say it..

Don't like the Olympics....really ?

[dom9]

Eh, i don't like the Olymipics, riiight.

My argument is, that we pay for an olympic stadium, then it gets knocked down, so Spurs can build another one, i would rather that stadium remained , with running track, to host athletic events, and help british athletes, that's how much i hate the er.. Olympics in London.

If you can't see that's a waste of tax payers money, knocking what we paid to build..then so be it.

We pay for the stadium in order to have the Olympics, right?

After that, a viable solution for the buildings, not just the stadium must be found.

To use it simply for Athletics once or twice a year is simply not viable, so that would cost the taxpayer more money in the form of ongoing maintenance.

West Ham would appear to have the best compromise as the stadium would be used for athletics rarely, and for other events regularly.

[dom9]

Also, both Spurs and West Ham have proposed to share a proportion of their income with the Government, in addition to paying rent.

[Vermilion]

We pay for the stadium in order to have the Olympics, right?

After that, a viable solution for the buildings, not just the stadium must be found.

To use it simply for Athletics once or twice a year is simply not viable, so that would cost the taxpayer more money in the form of ongoing maintenance.

West Ham would appear to have the best compromise as the stadium would be used for athletics rarely, and for other events regularly.

Is the correct answer for me.

What pisses me off even more, is why neither club came in from the start, the stadium design could have been done more to suit then, saving even more cash for the tax payer.

[Fredo]

In the sense that she flies around the world in aeroplanes everyday.

She's not cabin crew mate and doesn't fly around the world everyday.

You remember inventing your 'wife', surely?