Spurs Stadium Really Finished 5th & THFC Were Deeply Suspicious Of The Competition’s Public Vote

The Boy

4 years ago

There were two categories in this year’s competition, one for members of the general public to vote for their “Stadium Of The Year”, and one for ia jury industry professionals.

So which is the most meaningful vote? Normally in such competitions, it is the norm professional evaluation is required in order to provide gravitas.

Indeed, THFC were hesitant about the vote being hijacked (or subverted as the organizers phrased it) by non-Spurs fans. I received an email that made that quite clear.

So Football London‘s headline about the arena finishing second isn’t wholly correct. In fact, it incorporates a fair amount of spin.

The vote THFC were almost certainly more interested in would have been the Jury Vote. Not only could the Popular Vote be vulnerable to tribal favouritism, but it would also lack the authenticity of a gong from a panel of industry experts.

All the nominated were judged by the jury consisting of highly-experienced architects from various countries, who placed ENIC’s effort in 5th place and awarded the venue an architectural value score of 22.5% which was also achieved by the stadiums that finished, 6th and 7th.

On a note both topical and upbeat, Mr. Levy can at least tell people that his magnificent venture did at least beat the Wuhan Five Rings Sports Center Stadium in China, which came 8th.

What’s 5th place? Must try harder, a C+? Not to worry, it’s all about the money honey.

{{title}}