New Stadium Details And Discussions

Hoopspur · Sep 10, 2014

The General said:
People on here seem to see everything as so black and white. It's either Levy and ENIC don't want to build a stadium and are just going to make as much money out of the club as possible, or poor old Levy and ENIC, they've done everything they can and we'd be in a shiny new stadium already if it wasn't for that evil Archway Steel.

Has anyone considered the possibility that whilst Levy and ENIC may want to build a new stadium (if they could do it cheaply ie the Olympic stadium), they simply do not have the funds in place at present to do it and are therefore very happy to go along with the very slow appeals process? Archway Steel have no chance of winning this appeal. And as i understand it when they lose this appeal they can take it to the European court, where they will also lose. So if they can not win why do they continue to fight?

Whilst it is perhaps too far fetched to suggest Joe Lewis is a secret owner of Archway and is therefore the architect of this continuing delay, it is by no means too far fetched to suggest we would have made them a very low ball offer leaving them with no choice but to fight. Our recent history is littered with examples of us (Levy) trying to get players for considerably cheaper than their true (in the sellers view) worth. Fazzio, Dier are two examples of ones we got and i can name dozens that we did't get. (Schneiderlin, Mussachio, Moutinhio) Or perhaps we never intended to get those players. Just put the story out there to excite fans, a bit like the idea of "we're getting a shiny new stadium and then we'll be able to compete".

Before anyone accuses me of being angry, i am not. I love going to White Hart Lane for every home game and having had my season ticket for 10 years i can attest to the fact that we have progressed massively under Levy and ENIC's stewardship. I will be happy to continue going to the current ground for at least another 3 seasons, athough my gut instinct tells me it will be considerably longer.

However we must always question those that are lucky enough to be running our club and like the fat spanish waiter "i deal in facts" and those below are undeniable;

i) We have made a significant net profit on player trading in the last 4 seasons. With the continued delay in delivery of the stadium this looks likely to continue.

ii) As a club we have fallen further behind the big 5 under ENIC (measured by annual turnover). We will continue to fall further behind until we have a new stadium.

iii) ENIC took the club private (ie delisted from the stock exchange) which allows them to act more freely and report less on the financial performance of the club.

In conclusion, i expect to see the cub sold before the new ground is built and until a buyer is found we will continue to see excuses and delays to the stadium whilst at the same time ENIC will continue to make a handsome annual profit.

Quite a post for your first since you joined earlier. Did this news earlier compel you to join and comment? An interesting slant or take on it.

ClintEastwould · Sep 10, 2014

Much like Leandro Damiao, archway will hold out for a long as possible hoping for a lottery win. Instead they will lose the case, have to spend most of the compensation money on their ridiculous legal battle with their name tarnished and early retirement impossible.

Do they know who they are messing with?ENIC will not budge. Why were 70 other businesses in compliance with NDP but these fools decide they want to kick up a fuss. They're gooners. And if they're not they're greedy ****s hoping for a jackpot at the expense of an entire community.

Blake Griffin · Sep 10, 2014

it will be worth the wait if we don't end up with blue emirates.

timfrancis · Sep 10, 2014

Surely their solicitors must believe that they have some chance of winning, or they would have advised them not to keep pushing?

andyp8080 · Sep 10, 2014

timfrancis said:
Surely their solicitors must believe that they have some chance of winning, or they would have advised them not to keep pushing?

the solicitors will want paying if the win or lose so perhaps they don't care so much

ClintEastwould · Sep 10, 2014

Blake Griffin said:
it will be worth the wait if we don't end up with blue emirates.

I don't think the CPO delay will have any effect on the stadium designs

Harry Barber · Sep 10, 2014

stevenurse said:
For fuck sake. How much did the bellends want in the first place? Although I wouldn't want to be held to ransom, this means at least another 4 years of trailing our rivals Giving them what the wanted (or close to it) 3/4 years ago would have been the best signing we would have made in 20 years

Without being specific, they wanted north of 10mil.

talkshowhost86 · Sep 10, 2014

Stoof said:
Well, that's what I thought?

Is there some Part 36 offer equivalent that can get us our costs? Can you research for me? By 5:30? Thanks.

Matter number: Y0_UR_1V1UM

Rgds.

Pls dl.

I didn't get a kind regards...therefore no deal.

Harry Barber · Sep 10, 2014

mpickard2087 said:
As I have said before, I genuinely don't think it is about money with Archway and putting a few more zero's on the cheque. I think its a case where logic/reason long flew out the window, they simply don't want to move (especially being 'forced' out by a bigger entity) and on a point of principle will fight this until the very end.

Who is paying for all the legal stuff though, fuck knows.

Believe me, it's all about the money.

talkshowhost86 · Sep 10, 2014

Booney said:
I'm still slightly in two minds about it all.

Part of me absolutely doesn't want Archway to profit from their stand and I'd like Levy to see it through and hopefully run them into the ground in the process.

There's another part though that has seen Levy spunk millions of pounds of cash on terminating manager contracts and disasterous player transfers though the years. In terms of taking the club forward, begrudgingly paying over the odds for Archway may be the best way of spending the club's money. We could just look at like the property equivalent of buying David Bentley. Would probably be much cheaper and a lot more useful.

It's a dangerous precedent to set though.

I don't know what deals have been done with the other companies whose land we are acquiring, but we don't want to open the door to them all raising issues because they think they can get an extra payoff.

E17yid · Sep 10, 2014

Fuck it, let's face it, we were never going to get in by 2017. We're Spurs. We don't do things the easy way.

I trust Levy in all these kinds of matters. Just gotta bide our time, innit. It's frustrating but what you gunna do.

L.A. Yiddo · Sep 10, 2014

Come on, own up.

E17yid · Sep 10, 2014

As much as I'd like to call him a **** (preferably to his face) there's no need to give him abuse. Gotta let this thing play out

we_all_loved_freund · Sep 10, 2014

The bit the club have said about moving away must be for other business owners, who are dependant on match day traffic, to put some pressure on Archway.

On a side note, as we were going to build the ground in stages anyway, would it be possible to just start building around them? It is only the south part of the site that they occupy, which was the part of the ground that was not going to be completed before the north stand was demolished.

The stadium is going to get built there, come what may. In the unlikely event that the CPO is not upheld (notwithstanding any right of appeal the Council would have against such a decision), it would just mean us paying over the odds for it. Could we not just build it and play in a 3/4 built stadium, as was always planned, but with Archway still there, until they are removed?

buttons · Sep 10, 2014

I appreciate we dont know all the ins and outs of Archway's stance, but on the face of it at least, this case is another shining example of how utterly shambolic our planning policy is in this country. Even setting aside our allegiance to Spurs, how can one, reletively small, company hold up the redevelopment and regeneration of one of the most deprived areas of London for so long? Yes they have a business and yes they should be compensated for their losses and moved to new accomodation but no way should they be allowed have such a controlling say in the development.

I would be surprised (if we are genuine about our intention to build the stadium) if we havent made Archway a very fair offer for their premises and we have probably offered them accomodation elsewhere as well. Assuming thats the case, the courts will take a pretty dim view on Archway's stance as they have not taken steps to minimise their losses (which is a requirement of any party being CPO'd) and, as a result, will have a diminishing effect on their end compensation.

The General · Sep 10, 2014

Hoopspur said:
Quite a post for your first since you joined earlier. Did this news earlier compel you to join and comment? An interesting slant or take on it.

I've been lurking for many years. This is a great website with many intelligent participants, and some not so. After the news this morning i felt it was time to announce myself. Despite being a well educated 34 year old man with three children and a relatively serious job (which i should currently be performing rather than writing on this forum) i find myself sucked in every transfer window by the ITK section on this website. I have swayed wildly from pro Levy to Anti Levy and believing there really are people that are ITK to thinking they are 13 year old boys who are bored of playing Championship Manager. However after the recent transfer window and the continued delays to the new ground i have finally reached a position on both matters;

a) The ground will not be built for a very long time and probably not whilst ENIC are in charge. This does not make me anti ENIC though. I think it is too big a financial risk as i question whether we really have the fans to fill it. Do we really have a genuine waiting list of 30,000 people? Have you been to a thursday night Europa league match?

b) There genuinely are no ITK people on this board. Fazio, Dier, Yedlin were all named on BBC sport i believe this year before their names appeared on here. This does not make me anti ITK. I love it in fact, even if it is pure fantasy, and i'd miss it if it were gone (as i did earlier this summer when i tried to go cold turkey for a week).

I may just be in a negative mood because of the recent 'off pitch' progress (player acquisition and ground) of the club but you've got to admit it's all been a little underwhelming recently.

brasil_spur · Sep 10, 2014

Saoirse said:
Definitely agree there. Politically I'm very left wing but even I can see this is bloody ridiculous. Not to mention all the small businesses reliant on the club who will now miss out on a year's revenue because we have to leave thanks to the whole project being delayed by one greedy company. There really should be a much quicker process for dealing with this.

I think this is why we're putting the news out now. We have gone down the correct route of gaining a CPO, now we can tell all the locals that rely on income generated on match days what ****s Archway are and see if they don't apply a bit of local pressure on our behalf.

Booney · Sep 10, 2014

Harry Barber said:
Without being specific, they wanted north of 10mil.

Could we not just give them Paulinho?

talkshowhost86 · Sep 10, 2014

we_all_loved_freund said:
The bit the club have said about moving away must be for other business owners, who are dependant on match day traffic, to put some pressure on Archway.

On a side note, as we were going to build the ground in stages anyway, would it be possible to just start building around them? It is only the south part of the site that they occupy, which was the part of the ground that was not going to be completed before the north stand was demolished.

The stadium is going to get built there, come what may. In the unlikely event that the CPO is not upheld (notwithstanding any right of appeal the Council would have against such a decision), it would just mean us paying over the odds for it. Could we not just build it and play in a 3/4 built stadium, as was always planned, but with Archway still there, until they are removed?

I think the issue might be that Archway are saying the CPO isn't valid in the first place, so I assume that has knock-on effects for all the other land.

Although again I'm not really sure what their grounds for appeal are.

talkshowhost86 · Sep 10, 2014

L.A. Yiddo said:
Come on, own up.

Does that mean that 'quite offensive' is fine then?

Only joking.

Anyone posting abuse at them on Twitter really is a bit of a tit.

Forums

What's new

Matches

Sportsbook

Members

New Stadium Details And Discussions

You have insufficient privileges to reply here!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SC Supporter

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Mod-Moose

Well-Known Member

Mod-Moose

Well-Known Member

Not in L.A.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

SC Supporter

Well-Known Member

Mod-Moose

Mod-Moose

Similar threads