- Jun 5, 2004
- 32,221
- 64,290
- Staff
- #12,241
The law looks dimly on frivolity.
A good analogy would be how I'm looking at the contents of your post right now.
New Stadium Details And Discussions
- Thread starter fozzi44
- Start date
The law looks dimly on frivolity.
A good analogy would be how I'm looking at the contents of your post right now.
Coyboy
The Double of 1961 is still The Double
- Dec 3, 2004
- 15,506
- 5,032
Who Eversheds?
- Jun 5, 2004
- 32,221
- 64,290
- Staff
- #12,243
Yes. Ever ... fields Bruckaus Overy Deringer Chance and May.
*runs*
(Dammit, why do I always think they're Magic Circle?)
Kids, this is a momentous occasion: I was wrong.
Coyboy
The Double of 1961 is still The Double
- Dec 3, 2004
- 15,506
- 5,032
Yes. Ever ... fields Bruckaus Overy Deringer Chance and May.
*runs*
(Dammit, why do I always think they're Magic Circle?)
Kids, this is a momentous occasion: I was wrong.
Yeah mid table mediocrity mate according to wiki.
Zeb
Great big member
- Jan 23, 2013
- 348
- 1,244
Did the conveyancing for my house move - bunch of retards....
dave5150
Well-Known Member
- Aug 31, 2011
- 766
- 3,748
- Jun 5, 2004
- 32,221
- 64,290
- Staff
- #12,248
cliff jones
Well-Known Member
- Aug 31, 2012
- 4,094
- 6,668
I just ploughed through the legalise and my bias aside, how is it possible for Archways legal representation to try to score these socio economic environmental points when the whole world already knows that the sole aim of Archway is to extract a substantial pay off?
I seriously and naively expected a series of arguments articulating the real impact on archway. But there's an enormous hole where that should be, and we all know why. If they are lost to the immediate locale, what socio economic loss would that result in exactly?
In the magic circle, this procedural crap constitutes valid points scoring but the reality is our scheme leverages private investment that otherwise would not materialise, and the employment opportunities in construction and in particular the operation of the new stadium and the extra 20 odd thousand punters buying stuff in the area on match days massively outweigh a single private entity's rights.
It would be infuriating if these time wasters are allowed to take this to Europe.
I seriously and naively expected a series of arguments articulating the real impact on archway. But there's an enormous hole where that should be, and we all know why. If they are lost to the immediate locale, what socio economic loss would that result in exactly?
In the magic circle, this procedural crap constitutes valid points scoring but the reality is our scheme leverages private investment that otherwise would not materialise, and the employment opportunities in construction and in particular the operation of the new stadium and the extra 20 odd thousand punters buying stuff in the area on match days massively outweigh a single private entity's rights.
It would be infuriating if these time wasters are allowed to take this to Europe.
cliff jones
Well-Known Member
- Aug 31, 2012
- 4,094
- 6,668
What's your definition of greedy then? 12 times the worth not enough for you? Business is business, yes, but they're not being socially, economically, or environmentally responsible with their demands. Make a few mill, then fack off and get on with it.
L.A. Yiddo
Not in L.A.
- Apr 12, 2007
- 5,640
- 8,053
http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/news/club-statement-120914/
Tottenham Hotspur Limited ("THFC") notes the continuing press reports surrounding a potential takeover and the announcement released by Cain Hoy Enterprises, LLC ("Cain Hoy"). THFC confirms it is not in takeover discussions with Cain Hoy or any other party.
As stated in yesterday's announcement regarding the new stadium project, THFC has been in discussions with multiple providers of finance so that the optimum financing package for the project can be achieved and, in the course of those considerations, has met representatives of Cain Hoy. However, there are no ongoing discussions with Cain Hoy.
The Club is focused on the new stadium development and the season ahead.
Tottenham Hotspur Limited ("THFC") notes the continuing press reports surrounding a potential takeover and the announcement released by Cain Hoy Enterprises, LLC ("Cain Hoy"). THFC confirms it is not in takeover discussions with Cain Hoy or any other party.
As stated in yesterday's announcement regarding the new stadium project, THFC has been in discussions with multiple providers of finance so that the optimum financing package for the project can be achieved and, in the course of those considerations, has met representatives of Cain Hoy. However, there are no ongoing discussions with Cain Hoy.
The Club is focused on the new stadium development and the season ahead.
Harry Barber
Well-Known Member
- May 6, 2013
- 513
- 1,107
They own the property, they can ask whatever they want for it. How would anybody put a price on it? The value of something is what somebody is prepared to pay for it. We haven't paid because we are not prepared yet.
If Peter Josif was socially or environmentally obsessed, then his demands would be outrageous. But he obviously isn't. And we have to deal with it.
Trebmint2013
Active Member
- Jul 22, 2013
- 110
- 229
One of the things that I dont quite understand about all this is the one year away from WHL. How does Archway not moving for perhaps a year or so after we hoped they might work out that we need to play at MKDons? Surely we just delay the build for a year.
I believe that on closer study we've worked out our build 70% and then fill in the gaps scheme was a complete non starter, and have combined the two stories to make a reason for why we need to move out for a year. We say "to complete as fast and cost effectively as possible" - which is just saying that first part build scheme was too expensive so were moving for a year, but lets blame Archway.
Im not supporting Archway in any sense... TBH I think they are money grabbing %$%s and hope we hold out and they lose and get bugger a fraction of what they could have got a year ago. I just think we're seeing more issues coming out at the same time than just the CPO
I believe that on closer study we've worked out our build 70% and then fill in the gaps scheme was a complete non starter, and have combined the two stories to make a reason for why we need to move out for a year. We say "to complete as fast and cost effectively as possible" - which is just saying that first part build scheme was too expensive so were moving for a year, but lets blame Archway.
Im not supporting Archway in any sense... TBH I think they are money grabbing %$%s and hope we hold out and they lose and get bugger a fraction of what they could have got a year ago. I just think we're seeing more issues coming out at the same time than just the CPO
beats1
Well-Known Member
- Feb 22, 2010
- 30,028
- 29,601
I was half asleep last night but I did a lot of sustainability at uni and it is imo him using the wording of a regulation to apply to something completely different. He quotes the NPFF regulations and how our plans doesnt fit in with this framework. Now the example he is quoting is about the environmental impact on the ecological network of a river basin project and the sustainability behind it.
However him quoting paragraph 155 more sense however he isn't a planning officer and it would easy for us in court, to argue that that the new stadium will satisfy these factors more than us moving away or Archway themselves.
The paragraphs 14, 17 and 47 reference is weak imo and has been addressed by Pickles and the real planning officer.
I cant see why they carried on as we have addressed these issues in the CPO iirc
They are being greedy as their actions are impacting the businesses around them. They got more than the value of their property and are asking for extraordinary amount. Their business itself isn't that strong imo that they can go up against us.
£25m for a business thats worth around £1m-£2m at the most, well if thats not being greedy, what is?
Last edited:
beats1
Well-Known Member
- Feb 22, 2010
- 30,028
- 29,601
Olympic stadiums they need tenants to cover the costs of West Ham
weststandvoice
Yes we have no bananas
- Jul 29, 2005
- 1,076
- 876
Not according to the gov inspector who looked into the CPO. In fact, he said the opposite.
panties
has a nine incher
- Mar 13, 2014
- 1,345
- 1,919
Fuck them. Hope they get slaughtered in the courts. Gooner ****s.
THFCSPURS19
The Speaker of the Transfer Rumours Forum
- Jan 6, 2013
- 37,891
- 130,525
If Archway take it all the way, it could be delayed a long time. Didn't someone say they could go to the European courts if this appeal fails and then the Human Rights court after that...?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...ed-proposed-new-ground-shelved-SIX-YEARS.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...ed-proposed-new-ground-shelved-SIX-YEARS.html
davidmatzdorf
Front Page Gadfly
- Jun 7, 2004
- 18,106
- 45,030
It's a typically distorted, wildy spun article from the Daily Mail. They've taken every option that could possibly go wrong and amplified it to make it sound as ominous as possible.
Here's the important quotation from a specialist solicitor, which negates the whole spin of the article:
It could create years of delay. But it probably won't.
Last edited:
