Dr Venkman

Big assumption, this. You might not agree with the conclusion but I think we can give Howe and the considerable back room staff the benefit of the doubt in the data they’re using. Tonali needs to be in the team, though, agreed. IMO Howe needs to pick Joelinton or Longstaff, we don’t need both, particularly at home against weaker opposition.

I’m away this weekend mate otherwise me and the bairn would be back. All the best with it. We’ll be back if needed later in the season.

It’s not a free pass. He’s paid for his pass. Paid good money, as it happens.

We could have been 2-1 up at HT with a bit of luck and some better finishing. Thought we did enough to at least be level but it just wouldn’t drop for us. First 5 mins of the second half were promising. Both goals were piss poor on our part, just lack of fundamentals, really disappointing. The less said about the final half an hour, the better, it was desperate. Absolutely no idea what the plan was, and I don’t think the players knew either.

Sign of a good team is dispatching the shit teams with minimum fuss.

Eurgh, aye it looks good TBH.

Mason Nowt

Wind dropping before KO according to current forecast.

FFS

To avoid going around in circles I’ll just say thanks for the response. Totally understand where those who are cautious about a move are coming from. Ultimately I think most of this comes down to your final question. Is it worth losing SJP for? IMO, SJP is in a fantastic location, and that’s all I’d be concerned about losing. Providing any new build is city centre, IMO, any loss would be negligible.

re: 3 it’s interesting to see an ex-professional footballer make this point after I made the same point and it was immediately dismissed.

Indeed. Providing its city centre, I’ll take the absolutely phenomenal stadium, please.

Agreed.

Fair enough. I don’t understand the motivation for not wanting a stadium that is multi-use. Again, not trying to be clever, but if you’re not going to be involved in the other uses, why would it matter to you that much if it’s bringing in extra revenue for the club?

Ok. I agree on refuting the outright assertion that we *need* to move to be competitive. However, I don’t think it’s controversial to assert that the more money coming in, the better the chances of success. The difference between the two positions is quite stark, I think, and it seems disingenuous to argue against the former when it’s clearly nonsense. That was what drew me in to this in the first place. As for the pricing. No argument from me there. It will get more expensive. However, it’s possible it would get equally as expensive without a stadium move.

What are the fallacies?

Genuine question, not trying to be clever. What do you think the owners motivations for a new stadium would be, if they did it?

Yeah. However, there is a counterfactual where they stayed at Highbury and they weren't in the running for any PL titles or CL qualification, for various reasons. Leaving aside the extra income once they'd paid off the build costs, would they have been able to attract as high quality players/coaches? Other clubs have built a new stadium and not won anything isn't a convincing argument against us doing it to improve our chances of success, IMO. I think the ticket demand is a larger part of it than improving income, TBH. However, if there's no evidence that a new ground would make a discernible difference, why is senior management at the club telling us that it would help?

It’s also really, really weird that we’ve reached the point in the debate where it’s being doubted whether the club making more money would give it a better chance of success. It’s not about sure things, it’s about improving your chances. It’s not debatable whether more income equals better chances of success.

Aren’t you negating what/where Spurs would be if they hadn’t built a new stadium? What about Arsenal? Why do all these other clubs, with ambitions to put themselves in a position to give them the best chance of being successful, build new bigger stadiums? I appreciate it’s an emotive subject but I honestly think those who would rather stay for sentimental reasons would just own it. There’s nowt wrong with it.

This is a bizarre statement. The sensible argument is a new stadium, well planned, could give the club the opportunity to win things/become a global player. Engage with that one rather than something that's easier to take down which virtually no-one is arguing.

TBF, it's not just this. More people being able to get in is a positive IMO.