As an Athletics fan as much as a football fan it would be awful if Spurs got their way. Take a soon to be iconic stadium and then rip it apart to meet their needs. There has to be some form of legacy from the Olympics and to be honest as a football fan I am getting tired of it riding roughshod over any other sport. Sometimes the co-existance helps the smaller sports but this is a step too far for me.

A reason I like West Ham as a club is the intimate atmosphere of their current ground. Playing in a large stadium they are not guaranteed to fill with a running track between the crowd and the pitch would not be good for them.

As for Spurs, well, if they get their way we'll have to refer to them as Stratford Hotspur

Having been to Don Valley in both its guises I concur. Great for athletics, dreadful for football

I dont really get all this "Stratford Hotspur" thing.I think it was David Lammy who started it in some kind of desperation to stop Spurs moving......

Without having an opinion one way or the other on the stadium matter,I would like to ask,Why exactly would Spurs moving to Stratford neccesitate a name change....?

There are at least two clubs in London who dont play in the Borough that they "should" be playing in.

Do Crystal Palace FC play at Crystal Palace.....?
Do,or did we,have misplaced calls for them to change their name to something like Norwood Thornton Heath Eagles.

How about Queens Park Rangers,Lets see some MPs asking them to change their name to any one of the following..;
Hammersmith Rangers,
Sheperds Bush Rangers,
White City (whatevers)....!
etc etc

When an MP starts saying that a club cant move 3 or 4 miles down the road IN THE SAME CITY then you know things are getting desperate...

I wonder how many of those 34,000 on the season ticket list are locals and how many are Home Counties Bandwagoners? If the latter could be persuaded to go and support their real local team instead that would help solve the problem and maybe Spurs could stay at WHL after all.

Dale, there is an athletics stadium near Selhurt park called Crystal Palace. This is on a site near Sydenham where the orginial Crystal Palace was before it burnt down. The football club a little bit down the road was named after the Crystal Palace workers. The name of the team is not tied to the place of Crystal Palace but was taken from the Crystal Palace which also gave its name to a near by area.

Lincoln,whilst you are most likely absolutely factually correct,(and Im aware of the Crystal Palace Athletics Stadium and its history) I dont think you are exactly grasping what my point is.

Crystal Palace FC do not play at Crystal Palace,they play(perfectly legitimately.....!!)in Selhurst/Norwood/Thornton Heath,which is approx (depending which way you want to go) 3 miles away I would say.
Im not asking for them to have to change their name,Im saying that would be silly.
In the same vein Im saying that an MP asking for Tottenham Hotspur to have to change their name just because they want to move 3 miles down the road is also quite silly.

I know what your point is and agree with it, I was just saying Palace might be a bad example as their name is not linked to their location, like Port Vale, and therefore a change of location or current location is not necessary. Tottenham however are called Tottenham because of their location.
For the record I hope they do move, but are forced to keep the stadium. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than seeing how their fans cope with having done the same as Woolwich Arsenal all those years ago that they still complain about to this day coming in and stealing their fans.

Dale,

You could add to that list Millwall (play on the borders of Bermondsey and New Cross), Chelsea (Stamford Bridge is just inside Fulham) and West Ham (on the East Ham side of Green Street). On the other hand Clapton Orient became Leyton Orient when they crossed the Lea Valley and Arsenal dropped the Woolwich when they moved to Highbury, perhaps Tottenham will do likewise and become known as "Hotspur FC"?