https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47502366" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

should have been forced to wait until next season under the Premier League rules in my view

Chester Perry wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47502366

should have been forced to wait until next season under the Premier League rules in my view

Totally agree, what's the point. Considering how draconian the FA are with lower league clubs grounds meeting regulations etc, this is a bit of a **** take.

Chester Perry wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47502366

should have been forced to wait until next season under the Premier League rules in my view

Shouldn't be allowed to play there till pre season next term.....

I thought they weren't allowed to play in the new ground this season,this is a nonsense,how can that be fair to the rest of the league.

Totally unfair!

Cup games = Yes
League games = Big fat NO!!

Goody1975 wrote:Cup games = Yes
League games = Big fat NO!!

Why is it unfair?

Is it because Spurs will get a lift now and therefore its harder for visiting teams than it was for rest of us at Wembley... or am I missing something obvious?

ClaretShaun wrote:Why is it unfair?

Is it because Spurs will get a lift now and therefore its harder for visiting teams than it was for rest of us at Wembley... or am I missing something obvious?

or the opposite, we don't know.

Level playing field and all that.

Yeah just the talk of it being unfair..... I can’t see why it’s unfair to anyone

I honestly don't understand whats unfair about it?

Warnock was saying similar ages ago, don’t get it

Doesn’t bother me unless I’m missing something

It’s quite simple really - Spurs May improve their performances at WHL or they may play crap, the point is that it is different and as such not a “level playing field” so to speak

cricketfieldclarets wrote:I honestly don't understand whats unfair about it?

Your not a real fan then!

Rick_Muller wrote:It’s quite simple really - Spurs May improve their performances at WHL or they may play crap, the point is that it is different and as such not a “level playing field” so to speak

Nike stadium apparently.

Hopefully we stay up. Liz has been onto me about wanting to go the new WHL for months.

Rick_Muller wrote:It’s quite simple really - Spurs May improve their performances at WHL or they may play crap, the point is that it is different and as such not a “level playing field” so to speak

So when we bulldozed the longside in 1995 we shouldnt have been allowed to play at the turf?

Come to think of it we shouldnt be allowed to play here while the disabled sectionnis constructed. We should wait until 2020 or whenever its complete.

cricketfieldclarets wrote:So when we bulldozed the longside in 1995 we shouldnt have been allowed to play at the turf?

Come to think of it we shouldnt be allowed to play here while the disabled sectionnis constructed. We should wait until 2020 or whenever its complete.

Complete new stadium with new facilities for both teams v building a new section for 100 people?


Yeah they are both the same scenario

wilks_bfc wrote:Complete new stadium with new facilities for both teams v building a new section for 100 people?


Yeah they are both the same scenario

How is it unfair and who is it unfair too?

ClaretShaun wrote:How is it unfair and who is it unfair too?

It could be deemed unfair to us, we may have got a result playing at WHL but didn’t at Wembley. Then BHA get a result at WHL but may not have at Wembley - because the stadia are different it could be perceived as an advantage one way or the other.

You’re correct. It shouldn’t make any difference but it’s psychological

As with anything new or a change (new manager, new player) it gives the team & supporters a “lift” - look at the reaction Heston brought when he came back.

Spurs will get that lift and for those games have that “extra edge”.

It may also have the “West Ham” effect where they don’t win.
Not sure who they have to play at home from bottom of table but I know I wouldn’t want that to happen

“Unfair”???!!!

Hilarious. Is this a forum for 12 year olds?!!

After experiencing the horrible conditions of a half full freezing Wembley in December, for the fans sake, the sooner they are allowed home the better.

So they are moving from a new stadium in north London, with a regulation sized pitch in front of 60,000 fans a week to a new stadium in north London, with a regulation sized pitch in front of 60,000 fans a week... yep sounds really unfair

cricketfieldclarets wrote:So they are moving from a new stadium in north London, with a regulation sized pitch in front of 60,000 fans a week to a new stadium in north London, with a regulation sized pitch in front of 60,000 fans a week... yep sounds really unfair

Stop being obtuse about it. If the Turf were to be redeveloped and Burnley we’re playing at the nearest suitable stadium (Ewood) you would fully understand why we would have an advantage going “home” to Turf Moor

Rick_Muller wrote:Stop being obtuse about it. If the Turf were to be redeveloped and Burnley we’re playing at the nearest suitable stadium (Ewood) you would fully understand why we would have an advantage going “home” to Turf Moor

No I don't really. How does it make a difference if its at the start of a new season or in April? Who cares?

If people understood how long it takes a home side to get used to new surroundings and how results appear to veer away from the norm then they would understand - just look at Arsenal when they first moved to the emirates and Spurs when they first moved into Wembley (including our result there).

Home team and fans are not used to their surroundings and spend a lot of time adjusting to the new surroundings while away teams see it as an opportunity to set a new trend and of course the away teams/supporters are really up for spoiling the party for the home team. It is a pretty well established scenario which specifically led to the rule change. For teams in the relegation zone it is a boost for those yet to visit and a disadvantage for those who missed out - that is what Warnock was on about and he is right

Rick_Muller wrote:Stop being obtuse about it. If the Turf were to be redeveloped and Burnley we’re playing at the nearest suitable stadium (Ewood) you would fully understand why we would have an advantage going “home” to Turf Moor

I wouldn’t say playing the last 3/4 home games is an advantage.

The rest of the teams will play 19 home/away games.
Spurs 3/4 home the rest of them away.

Winstonswhite wrote:“Unfair”???!!!

Hilarious. Is this a forum for 12 year olds?!!

Ridiculous. If you’re whinging at something like this that makes no difference at all then you’ve little other worry or insterest in normal life..... or you’re 12 year old.

.....and and perceived tiny advantage you would feel would have to lie with those, like us, who have already played away to Spurs.

Spurs fans / players can’t wait to leave Wembley and it’s not been good for them..... whereas visiting players, those who hardly get to a final, will love the chance to play at Wembley.

Chester Perry wrote:If people understood how long it takes a home side to get used to new surroundings and how results appear to veer away from the norm then they would understand - just look at Arsenal when they first moved to the emirates and Spurs when they first moved into Wembley (including our result there).

Home team and fans are not used to their surroundings and spend a lot of time adjusting to the new surroundings while away teams see it as an opportunity to set a new trend and of course the away teams/supporters are really up for spoiling the party for the home team. It is a pretty well established scenario which specifically led to the rule change. For teams in the relegation zone it is a boost for those yet to visit and a disadvantage for those who missed out - that is what Warnock was on about and he is right

Yep just look at Leicester who won their first 6 games at their new ground. Lets face it im sure there's examples of teams struggling, teams doing well and teams doing indifferently in the same way teams who dont move grounds have mixed fortunes

Got to agree with those on here who see how pathetic it is to be getting upset about Spurs playing their last few home games at their new ground

Edit: Arsenal wasnt you best example as they only lost once at home all season (in April) after moving to the Emirates

So, as Chester Perry points out, it's unfair because the away team gets an advantage; and as ClaretShaun points out, because the home team gets an advantage.

I reckon it's about as unfair as when one team plays away to Spurs in April with the sun shining and a pleasant day, while another has a wet and windy December match. It's unfair, but impossible to judge who it's unfair to, and equally impossible to make it absolutely equal for all.

How is it fair that we played Spurs when Kane was playing, and the teams before us didn't?

Rick_Muller wrote:Stop being obtuse about it. If the Turf were to be redeveloped and Burnley we’re playing at the nearest suitable stadium (Ewood) you would fully understand why we would have an advantage going “home” to Turf Moor

OK Then