I think the point about Birmingham is that if a club is called "Birmingham City", then they have free reign to have their stadium anywhere in the city. Much like a "London FC" would be at home all around London (which is something, iirc, Leyton Orient would try to do if they drop the "Leyton").
So I think John Thomas has in mind that there's a specific connection to North London (signaled in the name), but that it's no longer practical to actually have a stadium in Tottenham.
.
Thank you. Thats pretty much what I`m trying to say. I don`t think we should be *compelled* to build the stadium in Tottenham. Had we actually tried to build the stadium in a more convenient location, with better transport links and less aggressive local authority, we`d probably be playing in it by now. And to answer someone elses question RE stratford/wembley. Yes, I would have actually supported a move to stratford (cue another load of neg reps or whatever.) a) It would have seen us grow as a club without breaking the bank and b) I fucking hate West Ham and didnt want to see them get it. Wembley, no. Thats the national stadium and should only be used by England and for cup finals. Although I would accept a temporary move there while the new stadium was being built if it suited the club financially. Those of you who support the idea that we must stay in Tottenham, which seems to be the majority, well, everyone apart from me actually, what year do you actually expect us to start playing in a stadium that holds more than Sunderland and Sheffield Wednesday. According to Levy in 2008 it was this year wasnt it ?