Only one thing is clear from what is likely to be a tricky search for Tottenham's temporary home, and that is there is no clear best candidate.
The club admitted as much when confirming they would have to move away from their base for the duration of the 2017-18 campaign, having revised the construction programme of a new stadium. "Clearly all possible options have pros and cons and we are aware that we shall not be able to find one which will please all parties," a Spurs statement said.
- Crace: Spurs need to think hard
They have already apparently ruled out many options, due to a failure to meet most criteria. Stadiums like Stamford Bridge, Craven Cottage and Twickenham are either the wrong side of London, the wrong size or the wrong circumstance. That currently leaves "four or five" options. So, what are the pros and cons from the likeliest stadiums?
Stadium:mk
Capacity: 32,000 (once expanded for Rugby World Cup)
Distance from White Hart Lane: 48.6 miles
The pros: It is probably the easiest to arrange, with Milton Keynes Dons known to be willing for any such deal, and Tottenham said to be open to the idea. The London club's season-ticket holders would also be covered by its capacity, which will be 32,000 once Stadium:mk is expanded for the 2015 Rugby World Cup. That will also mean the ground has facilitated fixtures far bigger than those in League One, where MK Dons currently play. As such, it will provide minimal fuss to set up, but maximum fuss thereafter -- especially to get there...
The cons: The 48.6 miles from Tottenham to a town outside London is asking an awful lot of the club's local supporters. There have already been murmurings that the board would reconsider the Milton Keynes option if there was a bad response, and it's difficult to see at least 30,000 fans being content with having to travel such a distance every two weeks. Midweek night games would cause even more difficulties. Beyond that, there is the residual debate about MK Dons as a club, after they were formed from the sad demise of Wimbledon. It would not exactly be a fan-friendly move.
Probability: 6.5/10. It entirely depends on whether the reaction of the Tottenham fans is furious, and how willing the club are to listen. Otherwise, it is the move that presents the least red tape.
Olympic Stadium
Capacity: 54,000
Distance from White Hart Lane: 11.6 miles
The pros: The Olympic Stadium's suitability is indicated by the fact it is one of the main reasons Spurs are moving. Their failure to secure tenancy meant Tottenham had to look elsewhere, but they can look on the venue with a degree of envy. It is the perfect size, and a fine east London location that is not too far from their area, with some of the best transport links in London.
The cons: There is residual bad feeling between Tottenham and West Ham United from the initial debates over who would move in -- not to mention some of the controversial headlines around it -- and Spurs would now require the current tenants to agree to share. Meanwhile, the London Legacy Development Corporation have already stated they would not consider a long-term ground share.
Probability: 6/10. Right now, it seems unlikely, but that is what long-term negotiations could be for. There is still a significant amount of time for the relationship with West Ham to be resolved.
Wembley
Capacity: 90,000
Distance from White Hart Lane: 12.7 miles
The pros: A huge stadium that is not too far away from White Hart Lane, and one that is pleasingly free of a connection to rival clubs. Wembley is also obviously well capable of hosting major fixtures, and has far superior transport links than Tottenham's current base. In theory, it is almost perfect. In reality, it is anything but...
The cons: The most important negative is the logistics, with everything else following on from that. Basically, Wembley would currently be unable to host all 19 of a Premier League team's home games due to hosting other events. The competition's rules also state that clubs must use only one stadium for all their home matches. It would likely take extreme flexibility to get around that, but then you have the next issue: the immense cost of renting Wembley. It may not be worth it, especially if Spurs are playing in front of a half-empty stadium every time. England's national stadium is far likelier to be used by Spurs for continental matches.
Probability: 5/10. There appear too many obstacles to be overcome.
The Emirates
Capacity: 60,388
Distance from White Hart Lane: 4.5 miles
The pros: The location and the size. Spurs fans wouldn't have to move too far, and they would go into a stadium close in scale to the one they want to build, but all those are precisely the reasons for so many negatives...
The cons: The location, the red, the reminders of Arsenal and all their success. The very fronts of the Emirates stands feature all the trophies that the stadium's owners have won over their history. It would not be the most pleasant place for Tottenham fans to temporarily call their home. Fans could react very negatively, and potentially stay away.
Probability: 4.5/10. Tottenham sources have said it is not being ruled out, and the location does make a lot of logical sense. But it would be unpopular with the fans and, although the club have been silent so far, Arsenal probably wouldn't entertain the prospect, either.