10 Stadiums Tottenham Could Play in During White Hart Lane's Reconstruction
Tottenham Hotspur are preparing to build a new stadium next to their current White Hart Lane home—early images suggest it will be called the Naming Rights Arena. Catchy, right?
However, for various bureaucratic reasons, it seems likely Spurs will need to find an alternate home for the 2017-18 season.
Here are 10 viable sites the Lilywhites could call home during that period...
The Emirates
1 of 10
Pros: Arsenal's stadium is only four miles from White Hart Lane and it will have more than enough room to accommodate the regulars. The likes of Milan and Internazionale or Roma and Lazio show that major city rivals can harmoniously share the same ground.
Cons: Spurs fans would probably sooner poke their own eyes out than go to Arsenal's ground every other week. They would be funding their fiercest rival.
Is it likely? Hell would freeze over sooner.
Wembley
2 of 10
Pros: The national stadium is only around 12 miles west of The Lane and could house nearly three times as many fans. There would be no need to work around the schedule of another league team and its temporary occupation shows ambition.
Cons: Arsenal used the old Wembley for Champions League games in the late 1990s so they could be accused of copying. They might not fill the 90,000 capacity. And they might have to play on a field that hosted a Bon Jovi concert the night before.
Is it likely? Probably not. According to the Daily Mail, Brent Council limit the amount of events that Wembley can hold annually to 37. It seems unlikely that 19 league games plus other competitions would be permitted.
Stadium:mk
3 of 10
Pros: MK Dons' home stadium:mk—nicknamed the "Moo Camp" because of the city's famous concrete cows—is a modern facility that can house 32,000 fans. It has plenty of transportation access and would not involve sharing with a direct rival. The Daily Mail says Spurs officials were impressed with the site during a recent visit.
Cons: It's over 50 miles away from The Lane, which probably won't sit too well with fans—just ask the Wimbledon supporters who refused to travel when the club was controversially relocated.
Additionally, Tottenham would be funding one of the most disliked organisations in football, founded by businessmen who killed an iconic south London club to set up a lucrative property deal. In football terms, clubs don't get any more evil.
Is it likely? Aside from the moral quandary of MK Dons' existence, fans will take an awful lot of persuading to make a round-trip of over 100 miles for home games.
The Olympic Stadium
4 of 10
Pros: The Olympic Park in Stratford is less than five miles from The Lane and it's 60,000-capacity will more than suit the needs of the Lilywhites. They were considering a bid from the stadium when it was up for tender after the Olympics, so it would be an example of "what they could have won."
Plus, Clive Allen's on board!
Cons: That'll be West Ham. The Hammers will be moving into the venue in 2016, and they would almost certainly oppose a ground share so soon after they took up residency.
Is it likely? At the moment, this seems like one of the more logical solutions to the problem. But when did logic and football ever go together?
Amex Stadium
5 of 10
Pros: Brighton's Amex Stadium is a beautiful modern venue set in the rolling hills of East Sussex, a pebble's throw from the pebbles beneath Brighton Pier. Who doesn't love a nice weekend away in Brighton?
Cons: It poses similar issues to stadium:mk—a limited capacity of only 30,000 and it's over 60 miles away from Spurs' spiritual north London home. And have you ever tried to park in Brighton? It's a nightmare.
Is it likely? The International Business Times (h/t The Week) suggests The Amex is of interest, but it seems just a little too far away.
Selhurst Park
6 of 10
Pros: Selhurst Park is a bit like Croydon's biggest hostel: They love having people stay with them! Crystal Palace welcomed Charlton as tenants in 1985 and when they left in 1991, Wimbledon moved in for 12 years. The Eagles would surely welcome the revenue and the nostalgia of having another London side bunk with them.
Cons: Selhurst Park can only hold a little over 26,000 fans and it's 16 miles across the heart of London—which means about three hours away. Plus, the stadium and the surrounding area make White Hart Lane seem positively luxurious.
Is it likely? It hasn't been discussed, but it might make sense as a temporary solution.
CenturyLink Field
7 of 10
Pros: Hear us out on this one. Over the summer, a healthy 56,000 Americans saw Spurs draw with the Seattle Sounders at CenturyLink. Every Premier League club seems desperate to increase their marketability in the USA, so this seems like a perfect opportunity to lay some ground in the soccer-loving Pacific north-west.
Cons: Um, it's in America. It's going to be tricky to play on a Saturday and then fly off for a Tuesday night match in Stoke.
Is it likely? One would think not, but according to Metro (h/t the Daily Mail) the club is up for sale and the new owners could make a small fortune from this idea.
Hackney Marshes
8 of 10
Pros: Hackney Marshes, the home of Sunday pub team football, is less than five miles from The Lane. If the Olympic Park is a no-go, why not pitch up next to it, build a few temporary stands and create a "pop-up" stadium? After all, people in east London love anything that's "pop-up" and quirky.
Cons: It might be difficult to stop dogs running on the pitch. And the Horse and Crown's XI might object.
Is it likely? A Premier League club returns to grassroots football? No, not likely.
Upton Park
9 of 10
Pros: West Ham are moving out of their home in 2016, so Tottenham could potentially have the 35,000-capacity Boleyn all to themselves. All they would need to do is convince its new owners to hold off on demolishing it for another season.
Cons: Galliard, the prospective new owners, would need an awful lot of money to delay their plans to turn it into flats.
Is it likely? It seems like the timing may not be quite right on this one.
Go on a UK Tour
10 of 10
Pros: Remember when Wembley was being rebuilt and England played their fixtures at various stops around the land? It was brilliant, and Tottenham could hugely expand their "fan base" (read: "money-making potential") outside of north London by playing their home games at 19 different British venues. Imagine hosting Arsenal at Ibrox! In a possibly-independent Scotland!
Cons: It might bring in the cash, but would probably eliminate home advantage.
Is it likely? About as likely as them changing their name to "Arsenal Jr."
.jpg?w=600 "Colts Release Kenny Moore")
