White Hart Lane is going to close for refurbishment. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The season after next, Spurs will go a-wandering

Where will the fans park then?

I was told to speak to nobody, even if spoken to – just put the blank envelope through the letter box, make sure it contains the money, with no other details, then return at once.

Roger and out, I muttered, creeping up quietly to the front door of the little terraced house on the edge of the council estate. Mission accomplished, the others got out of the car, leaving it there in the front drive, and we all made a dash for White Hart Lane.

Actually his name is John but I suppose I should not even reveal that, as the authorities might get on to him, or at least on to her, the tenant of the house, and ask her why she is not paying tax on the £10 notes that regularly get shoved through her letter box on match days.

When I go with John to Spurs in his car, I always insist on paying the parking. It is such a huge benefit, being dropped so near the ground, not having to drive round for hours or negotiate public transport, which in Tottenham is hellish.

All around Spurs and every major club in the UK, there are locals making loads of cash by allowing parking in their front drive. Schools rent out their playgrounds, as do pubs, garages, anywhere where cars can be left for two hours on match days. Paying £10 is now a bargain. In more expensive areas (around Arsenal, for instance), they charge £15.

I don’t think Doris – not her real name, I’m not daft, someone might track her down and offer her more – is fully aware of what is going to happen soon to her finances. The season after next, the club has revealed, it will have to leave White Hart Lane for a whole season while its new stadium gets built. Spurs will then be homeless, relying on the co-operation of Wembley, or the Olympic Stadium, or, if they both say up your bum, it could well be Milton Keynes, anywhere they can play their “home” games.

As a devoted follower of football history, I find it rather romantic. This is how it all began. Our first and for many years the best-known and successful club in the land was the Wanderers, founded in 1859. They won the first FA Cup final in 1872 and five times in all. Their star players included Charles Alcock, who was secretary of the FA, and Lord Kinnaird, later FA president. They were an amateur team, all public school boys – and homeless, never having their own ground. Hence their name.

I have always assumed that Bolton Wanderers, founded 1874, and Wolverhampton Wanderers, first formed 1877, and perhaps all the other Wanderers, took their name from the first, or because at one time they, too, were homeless. Same with clubs called Rovers.

It would be a nice touch if Spurs, for their season on the road, added the name Wanderers, without, of course, giving up Hotspur, which is a historic name, going back to Shakespeare’s Harry Hotspur, the Dukes of Northumberland and Northumberland Park, where Spurs first played, early doors.

Doris will not be the only one to suffer. Stalls selling horrible, smelly burgers will be out of pocket, along with the souvenir sellers, club shops, stewards, security and all those hospitality jobsworths. Presumably they will still produce a Spurs programme, regardless of the venue, but a thousand or so match day jobs and livelihoods will be in danger.

As for the fans, it costs a fortune as it is to turn up at White Hart Lane. I saw a report the other day that said the average supporter of a Premier team pays £3,550 a year – that includes £760 on parking, plus food, drink, programme and ticket. If we then have to trail another 20 miles across London, or find out if Milton Keynes really does exist, the cost is going to be enormous.

I am hoping that during their year on the road Spurs might decide to play on Hampstead Heath. Much nearer than all the other suggestions. There is an excellent pitch inside the running track. And I’ll be able to rent out my garage . . .

Hunter Davies is a journalist, broadcaster and profilic author perhaps best known for writing about the Beatles. He is an ardent Tottenham fan and writes a regular column on football for the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 01 May 2014 issue of the New Statesman, The Islam issue

@Simon_Cullen via Twitter
Show Hide image

All 27 things wrong with today’s Daily Mail front cover

Where do I even start?

Hello. Have you seen today’s Daily Mail cover? It is wrong. Very wrong. So wrong that if you have seen today’s Daily Mail cover, you no doubt immediately turned to the person nearest to you to ask: “Have you seen today’s Daily Mail cover? It is wrong.”

But just how wrong is the wrong Mail cover? Let me count the ways.

  1. Why does it say “web” and not “the web”?
  2. Perhaps they were looking on a spider’s web and to be honest that makes more sense because
  3. How does it take TWO MINUTES to use a search engine to find out that cars can kill people?
  4. Are the Mail team like your Year 8 Geography teacher, stuck in an infinite loop of typing G o o g l e . c o m into the Google search bar, the search bar that they could’ve just used to search for the thing they want?
  5. And then when they finally typed G o o g l e . c o m, did they laboriously fill in their search term and drag the cursor to click “Search” instead of just pressing Enter?
  6. The Daily Mail just won Newspaper of the Year at the Press Awards
  7. Are the Daily Mail – Newspaper of the Year – saying that Google should be banned?
  8. If so, do they think we should ban libraries, primary education, and the written word?
  9. Sadly, we know the answer to this
  10. Google – the greatest source of information in the history of human civilisation – is not a friend to terrorists; it is a friend to teachers, doctors, students, journalists, and teenage girls who aren’t quite sure how to put a tampon in for the first time
  11. Upon first look, this cover seemed so obviously, very clearly fake
  12. Yet it’s not fake
  13. It’s real
  14. More than Google, the Mail are aiding terrorists by pointing out how to find “manuals” online
  15. While subsets of Google (most notably AdSense) can be legitimately criticised for profiting from terrorism, the Mail is specifically going at Google dot com
  16. Again, do they want to ban Google dot com?
  17. Do they want to ban cars?
  18. Do they want to ban search results about cars?
  19. Because if so, where will that one guy from primary school get his latest profile picture from?
  20. Are they suggesting we use Bing?
  21. Why are they, once again, focusing on the perpetrator instead of the victims?
  22. The Mail is 65p
  23. It is hard to believe that there is a single person alive, Mail reader or not, that can agree with this headline
  24. Three people wrote this article
  25. Three people took two minutes to find out cars can drive into people
  26. Trees had to die for this to be printed
  27. It is the front cover of the Mail

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.