The difference between us and other clubs who've moved stadium is that the Arse can't call the Emirates "Highbury" and Man. City can't call the Ethiad "Maine Road". Neither makes any sense. But Spurs fans can very easily refer to the Aurasma Arena as "White Hart Lane". The exact same location, the same surrounding roads that name the ends, some retained historical features from the site of the old stadium, same approaches, car parks, undergrounds, pubs, kebab shops. All those things make a stadium what it is and we have them all still in place.
In truth, WHL has never stayed the same architecturally for more than a few years before some stand or terrace has been changed, meaning the specific architecture in any era's version of the stadium doesn't in itself define "WHL". In fact, in a perverse sense the actual "buildings" are the least of it because they change so often. We still have all the things in place that really make WHL "WHL".
On top of that, it helps greatly that the design of the new WHL is reminiscent and in keeping with previous incarnations of the stadium, as evidenced in the pic above (from the 50's I think?). Which is to say, high, upright stands that enclose the pitch. That general concept is seen in very many historical shots you see of the ground, and that includes up to the present day version. Seems to me the new design is very much in this tradition and should be every bit as much "WHL" as versions of the stadium of yore.
I agree about the feel of the stadium, just looking at this picture and you can feel a certain resemblance to WHL
Maybe its the yellow boards, the prominent placement of the executive boxes, or the fact that WHL has been shaped into an enclosed arena rather than having spaces in the corners.
However, I think the way in which the ground is refered to in the media and by the club will shape what is said and there is the danger it will eventually rub off.
You have to remember that the offical channels have to stick to whatever is being sold, so if it is Beko Dome its the Beko Dome. If its called White Hart Lane sponsored by Beko then it gives us a bit of hope, but why would Beko agree to that? (Using Beko as an example, no ITK by any means
). The whole point of naming rights is the name. And if you are spending £200m on something, you should be expecting to get exactly what you want.
This is the world we live in, and we either accept it and move on or rebel, make a stand, and tolerate the loses. How far do we go if someone is prepared to pay the buck? Change the kit to red if a chinese company come calling? Are we willing to rename the club "Total Network Solutions"? Both horrific concepts but they have happened already and will become more commonplace. So the question is, how far do we compromise?
No chance do I want us to have even a splash of red in a shirt again. The name should never be changed. But the new stadium, when we get there, the name's not a deal breaker and there are plenty of clubs who already do it for it not to sound odd. I just hope its not something ridiculous like the "KFC Bargain Bucket Park". But if it is, so long as the colonel gives us a few hundred million quid, we can live with it.
Fears aside, I'll still try to refer to it as White Hart Lane, and hopefully that will last. Some AFC Bournemouth fans still refer to their club as "Boscombe"......and although it's not picked up on in popular press, lots of our own still cheer on the "Lilywhites". And we've got our own song "Spurs are on the way to Wembley........ the boys from White Hart Lane".....unique to THFC and guaranteed to be sung in our triumphant 2021 FA Cup campaign, regardless of where "home" is.
