New Stadium Details And Discussions

Hoopspur · Sep 11, 2014

As I said a few pages ago, what will be will be and the stadium build will follow the necessary timescales - foreseen or unforeseen in order to get it built (probably). I don't think there is anything on here that any of us can do about it tbh.

To get unreasonably emotional and start casting blame or insults around is fruitless. Especially as we are unaware of all the background, implications or plans. Just an observation folks (y)

Coyboy · Sep 11, 2014

I know next to nothing about appealing a CPO but it seems to be that it is similar, or even the same, as applying for a judicial review of a decision made by a public authority. The court cannot and will not look at the merits of the decision but the decision making process and will not find in favour of Archway if the reasons for issuing the CPO are adequate and intelligible.

buttons · Sep 11, 2014

I think this will still be sorted by negotiation and probably fairly soon.

Both parties are 'going through the process' but both still seem to be at the table to negotiate.

I suspect this is the same as 99% of all CPO cases and I bet very few actually reach the court stage - that is a route neither party will want to go down as it adds uncertainty to all in terms of fees, timescales and compensation.

tommo84 · Sep 11, 2014

Soundbites like "We just want what is right" are damagingly hollow unless you clarify your definition of "what's right".

Given that yesterday lunchtime Archway posted the "Couldn'tgiveafuckistan" tweet and blocked a SSN journo but last night they granted an interview, I suspect that someone on their legal team has advised them that they are losing the PR battle and making it easy for people to conclude they are driven by greed, which massively undermines their appeal.

They will not get the big settlement offer from THFC that we all presume they are hoping for, as THFC may then look like they have underpaid the other 70 businesses which have already been relocated, damaging their position in any future wrangles and encouraging other people (if a similar situation ever arises) to try and hold the club to ransom as Archway are doing.

Stoof · Sep 11, 2014

Coyboy said:
I know next to nothing about appealing a CPO but it seems to be that it is similar, or even the same, as applying for a judicial review of a decision made by a public authority. The court cannot and will not look at the merits of the decision but the decision making process and will not find in favour of Archway if the reasons for issuing the CPO are adequate and intelligible.

'xactly - and which surely they must be. Surely.

stenard · Sep 11, 2014

Stoof said:
Out of interest, who is acting for them?

From the legal representation letter linked earlier, they are being represented by Paul Winter & Co.

It is interesting that he has acted on the other side (i.e. the equivalent of Haringey/THFC in this situation) for the Olympics and for the Emirates. The case study on his website for the latter states he assisted in the defence of proceedings against issued CPO's, so he's clearly highly skilled in Property Law and this topic in particular (his website includes an Islington Council review stating: "Paul came to us with a reputation as one of the top Planning lawyers in the country").

When it comes to the Law, we really just have to let things run their course. As others have stated, I have no doubt the stadium will ultimately get built, but that's not to say the delays in the meantime are not frustrating.

Mister Jez · Sep 11, 2014

Stoof said:
'xactly - and which surely they must be. Surely.

This is exactly the reason Eric Pickles took so long to grant the CPO in the first place. Somebody connected with the process said. The decision would have to stand up in court. Implying they knew there would in all likelihood be an appeal.

I know a few on here lambasted Eric for taking an eternity, but in hindsight, we should probably be thanking him. Although the stadium seems a million miles away, in real amity, it isn't. Work will continue while the law grinds away.

gilzeantheking · Sep 11, 2014

Twitter convo from Katrina Law (Secretary of the THST)

I would imagine that she would have good knowledge of the history of this story.

THST Official ‏@THSTOfficial 1h
THST will be releasing a statement later today following yesterday's CPO appeal and ground share announcement.

@THSTOfficial @Katspur71 I think most Spurs fans just want to know what Archway is worth, what Spurs have offered and what they want!

Kat ‏@Katspur71 1h
@nicktheyid61 @THSTOfficial It's valued at under £2m and they want £25m. The
CPO process ensures they will receive a fair price.

@Katspur71 @THSTOfficial thanks Kat! do you know what the best offer Spurs made to them amounted to?

@nicktheyid61 @Katspur71 Well in excess of the valuation. This has been ongoing for the best part of a decade. The Club have been reasonable

Adam Margolis ‏@Adamjmargo 31m
@Katspur71 @nicktheyid61 @THSTOfficial I feel sorry for the other small businesses who will lose rely on matchday revenue because of archway

@robMDK @Katspur71 @nicktheyid61 @THSTOfficial I was just reading this. They have got to be funded by someone they can't afford legal costs
Expand

gilzeantheking · Sep 11, 2014

Statement from the THST on yesterday's OS announcement re the new stadium

https://www.thstofficial.com/thst-news/thst-statement-on-new-stadium-update

danielneeds · Sep 11, 2014

spursram said:
I read that we have offered them land, and relocation costs but not rebuilding new premises. The land offered is already owned by ENIC, near the North Circular.

Is that true? Is that fair?

I don't know much about the sheet metal business but I would imagine moving to a site connected to a major transport artery would be hugely beneficial in terms of getting the product to clients. As for the building of a premises, I'm sure a couple of aluminium hangers don't cost too much.

Booney · Sep 11, 2014

Not sure I buy the concern that one season away from WHL could turn into two or three. Surely that would be in absolutely nobody's interests (unless you happen to own MK Dons stadium)?

Still think the Archway/CPO delay has given ENIC an easy get-out on this one and that a move away for one season would have always looked attractive to them due to the cost implications. The way it has now panned out means that they can now argue that they weren't left with a choice. I can't see why on earth they would want to move away for any longer though.

When they do eventually build the shiny new stadium I'm sure they would still like to have some fans left to sit in it.

spursfan77 · Sep 11, 2014

tommo84 said:
Soundbites like "We just want what is right" are damagingly hollow unless you clarify your definition of "what's right".

Given that yesterday lunchtime Archway posted the "Couldn'tgiveafuckistan" tweet and blocked a SSN journo but last night they granted an interview, I suspect that someone on their legal team has advised them that they are losing the PR battle and making it easy for people to conclude they are driven by greed, which massively undermines their appeal.

They will not get the big settlement offer from THFC that we all presume they are hoping for, as THFC may then look like they have underpaid the other 70 businesses which have already been relocated, damaging their position in any future wrangles and encouraging other people (if a similar situation ever arises) to try and hold the club to ransom as Archway are doing.

We don't know if they've underpaid for the other businesses/properties though without doing some research. What if they offered above market value for them? I really can't see any of the other owners forcing some kind of uprising. All their deals will have been done above board. They wouldn't of got signed off if not.

danielneeds · Sep 11, 2014

Booney said:
Not sure I buy the concern that one season away from WHL could turn into two or three. Surely that would be in absolutely nobody's interests (unless you happen to own MK Dons stadium)?

Still think the Archway/CPO delay has given ENIC an easy get-out on this one and that a move away for one season would have always looked attractive to them due to the cost implications. The way it has now panned out means that they can now argue that they weren't left with a choice. I can't see why on earth they would want to move away for any longer though.

When they do eventually build the shiny new stadium I'm sure they would still like to have some fans left to sit in it.

I think it's exactly the opposite. A move away for a season will cost the club dearly. Wherever we rent will take a big slice of matchday revenue.

tommo84 · Sep 11, 2014

spursfan77 said:
We don't know if they've underpaid for the other businesses/properties though without doing some research. What if they offered above market value for them? I really can't see any of the other owners forcing some kind of uprising. All their deals will have been done above board. They wouldn't of got signed off if not.

I'm certain they have done things above board with the other 70 (its nigh impossible to rip off 70 businesses in the same area and only have the 71st kick up a stink). What I'm suggesting is that, if we settled by paying an inflated amount for Archway, those 70 may reassess whether or not what they received was 'fair' and start to kick up a fuss to chance their arm at getting a bit more (though I doubt they could really do that in retrospect).

davidmatzdorf · Sep 11, 2014

@robMDK @Katspur71 @nicktheyid61 @THSTOfficial I was just reading this. They have got to be funded by someone they can't afford legal costs

I've seen this posted quite a few times. I'm sure there is someone here who is a solicitor and can tell us whether it is permissible to act in this kind of matter for a contingency fee. If so, then the issue of front-funding legal fees does not arise.

davidmatzdorf · Sep 11, 2014

danielneeds said:
I think it's exactly the opposite. A move away for a season will cost the club dearly. Wherever we rent will take a big slice of matchday revenue.

The decision over whether to move temporarily has always been balanced between the marginal costs of moving - loss of revenue, rent, etc. - and the marginal costs of building the new stadium in phases, also taking into account that the earlier the new stadium is occupied, the sooner we start banking receipts from 56k tickets every fortnight instead of 36k.

The increased build costs of phasing the development would be substantial and I reckon that the reason why no decision on this point has been announced until now is because THFC was waiting for the tenders before assessing the costs of phasing the build. Now the Archway appeal has forced their hand, because the delay to completion will be too long if they factor in both delays: waiting for the Archway appeal and then the extended building period.

davidmatzdorf · Sep 11, 2014

tommo84 said:
I'm certain they have done things above board with the other 70 (its nigh impossible to rip off 70 businesses in the same area and only have the 71st kick up a stink). What I'm suggesting is that, if we settled by paying an inflated amount for Archway, those 70 may reassess whether or not what they received was 'fair' and start to kick up a fuss to chance their arm at getting a bit more (though I doubt they could really do that in retrospect).

There's nothing they could do at this stage. Those deals were private sales and they would have been signed off as final when the land changed hands. I doubt that Paul Kemsley would have negotiated any land acquisitions that permitted the vendors to come back and revalue the sale based on subsequent events. Such 'overage' deals are possible, indeed common enough, but there's no reason why he would have done that and plenty of reasons why he wouldn't.

Coyboy · Sep 11, 2014

davidmatzdorf said:
I've seen this posted quite a few times. I'm sure there is someone here who is a solicitor and can tell us whether it is permissible to act in this kind of matter for a contingency fee. If so, then the issue of front-funding legal fees does not arise.

I believe so, and in any case they could have ATE (After the event) insurance.

spursram · Sep 11, 2014

danielneeds said:
I don't know much about the sheet metal business but I would imagine moving to a site connected to a major transport artery would be hugely beneficial in terms of getting the product to clients. As for the building of a premises, I'm sure a couple of aluminium hangers don't cost too much.

If you are right and a couple of aluminum hangars is causing the hold up...that is unbelievable!

TimNiceButDim · Sep 11, 2014

What I'm really failing to grasp is there reluctance to move. As far as I'm aware; "I'm just nipping down the high street to pick up some sheet metal" is a phrase spoken by nobody, ever. Whether they are located in the current premises or a few hundred yards away is completely redundant as they are not reliant on customers wandering in off the street. I'd assume the majority of their customers are other local business who, we are told, are very much pro the regeneration of Tottenham. Surely the fact that the Josif family are doing their utmost to delay the project and stop all the other business greatly increasing their revenues would make them think twice about using their services and could result in them pissing off quite a few of their regulars.

If they sold their land on their own terms they would get far less than what they are being offered by the club and would also have to shell out for a new premises. By accepting the clubs offer, they get paid a huge amount more than the ground is worth, a brand new site and a relocation bonus.

It is virtually impossible to argue that this is anything other than case of short sighted greed.

Forums

What's new

Matches

Sportsbook

Members

New Stadium Details And Discussions

You have insufficient privileges to reply here!

The Double of 1961 is still The Double

Well-Known Member

Proud to be loud

THERE IS A PIGEON IN MY BANK ACCOUNT

Active Member

Well-Known Member

SC Supporter

SC Supporter

Kick-Ass

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Kick-Ass

Proud to be loud

Front Page Gadfly

Front Page Gadfly

Front Page Gadfly

The Double of 1961 is still The Double

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads