They have a restaurant and banqueting facility which obviously generates a lot of use. It's part of the stadium complex and I guess it is open every day. If we owned the LS we could maybe develop something similar but I can't somehow imagine people flocking to Upton Park for a top class dining experience had we stayed there, can you ?terrya1965 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 09, 2020 12:40 amSpurs of the past,yes,a lot bigger,but at the time of G & S taking over,the gap was probably at it`s smallest between them.The difference now is,they are in a different world to us.Whiskyman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2020 10:39 pm
I agree with you about the calibre of people running the two clubs. Chalk and cheese come to mind.
But , come on Tel, take off those C & B spect. "Not a lot between the 2 clubs "? In attendance terms probably not but in historical achievements ?
The only trophy we have won as often as Spurs is the old ECWC. We have to face facts they are a far bigger club than we are. When I first started watching football there was a big 5. Manchester United ( even though their team in the early 70s was crap), the two Scouse teams , Arsenal & Spurs. We were always lumped with Chelsea to be regarded as the 3rd biggest London club.
And what do Spurs use their stadium for 365 days a year when they aren't playing football on it? How much did we earn from Upton Park when it was still there ?
The dwarf and the dribbler are a pair of shysters. We all know that. But moving to the LS was a good move. Unfortunately, coming back to your point about the calibre of people running the club, the move was mishandled.
Spurs were always bigger than Chelsea,but they aren't now,are they?Chelsea are has big,if not even bigger world wise,than Arsenal.Money wise,Chelsea make more financially and that wasn`t the case 20 years ago.
With the right owners and Management,we could have been top dogs in London.
They gain an income,not just from football at the Stadium.If you listen to that fella on Football Finances,he said Spurs use that stadium 365 days of the year,
Chelsea is now a bigger club than Spurs thanks to Abramovich and are a good example as you say of how a club can develop with the appropriate and correctly used level of investment. Manchester City is of course another example and Paris St Germain who were just another club before they were taken over.
Problem is West Ham have always been seen as a scruffy little East End club whereas Chelsea have a far more fashionable West London postcode, which does make a difference. It's one of the reasons I hate the label "working class club" that we always seem to be stuck with. Despite the fact there was a survey carried out a few years back that claimed we had one of the biggest percentages of season ticket holders with 6 figure salaries in the league.