As the continuing goings-on over the proposed new Spurs stadium take shape, I wonder whether the club really wants to stay at White Hart Lane. This saga has gone on for far too long, particularly the continued transport problems on match days (some days, fans take longer to get to the ground due to the infamous engineering works, which sometimes knocks out either the rail service covering Tottenham Hale, or the Victoria Line tube. Given the club's difficult relationship with the council, sure it is time for them to consider two realistic alternatives if the stadium fails to get the required planning permission.
The first option is very controversial: groundshare with Arsenal. Now, I had a discussion with my brother, who's an Arsenal fan, about this, and defiantly says it's a non-starter. But the Emirates is a wonderful stadium, and the area surrounding it has good transport links, and effective walking routes for both home and away supporters.
The second option is more difficult. Moving to the new Olympic stadium in Stratford after the 2012 games would be the ultimate win-win for the club. The club I support, West Ham, is in pole position to move into the stadium, but we're not big enough to filling 55,000+ supporters every other week. Spurs, though, have that level of support, and if they are clever, they can jump the queue and get in there before the Two Davids know what hit them!
The stadium is not far from Stratford station itself, which is covered by excellent transport links (four tube lines and two rail lines), and a lot of the area has been regenerated with improvements to housing, and better shopping, leisure and cultural amenities, aided in part (dare I say it) by a progressive Labour-controlled council.
As we in Tottenham wait aimlessly for the goings on at Spurs, I feel that any chance of the north of the area being improved can genuinely happen... but without Spurs.
What's your view?