What's new

New Stadium Details And Discussions

danielneeds

Kick-Ass
May 5, 2004
24,179
48,764
Usually a big fan of Davd Conn, but this seems like a bit of a hatchet job. Of course, people will need to be relocated, of course the club will try to maximise its real estate profits and pay as little tax as is legal. What exactly is surprising about any of that?
 

sherbornespurs

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2006
3,758
9,241
Some interesting stuff here, however Mr Conn would be better employed trying to get to the bottom of why West Ham are getting a stadium that cost the taxpayer over £600m for £15m + the revenue from two home games per season.
 

davidmatzdorf

Front Page Gadfly
Jun 7, 2004
18,106
45,030
The Olympic Stadium didn't cost anything like £400-£600m. That's the usual press malicious nonsense. That headline figure includes the cost of making develop-able a highly contaminated and environmentally compromised site, plus infrastructure, access, etc. The actual stadium cost a fraction of that. Anything that would have been built on that site would have had to incur the decontamination and site preparation costs. But now that the press have hammered away with their usual anti-development agenda for many years, it has become an accepted factoid that the OS cost hundreds of millions of pounds,

There's no reason why anyone would expect West Ham to pay for the costs of making a key part of the overall Olympic site viable. That was one of the regeneration costs - which people may recall was the key element that won London the Olympics in the first place.

Similarly, the linked article about the Tottenham regeneration is inflated nonsense. Who in their right mind would imagine that a comprehensive regeneration of the land to the West of the High Rd would involve preserving a row of highly run-down shops and industrial premises, all of which grossly under-occupy their sites. It would be ridiculous. The West side of the High Rd needs a proper medium-rise development, with good quality modern retail on the ground floor and residential and/or office premises above.

And the fucking idiot who is calling the prospective compulsory purchase of his site "theft" just wants shooting. If, as I anticipate, the business-owners are all subjected eventually to CPOs, they'll be offered a price based on a market valuation.
 

camaj

Posting too much
Aug 10, 2004
8,195
883
What I didn't like was the attempt to paint Harringey's plan as something the club is responsible for. I sympathise with the local businesses but it's between them and the council.

I found some of the comments quite surprising too. It was like some of them weren't familiar with CPO's. If the government need the bit of land your using, they're going to force you to sell, it's nothing new. I can understand the local traders being a bit miffed but you can't tell me that someone who makes wooden signs needs to have a workshop in Tottenham, it's not something that caters to local shoppers.

The article had some interesting details though:
"The transfer was to clear debts out of our UK companies which had bought the properties, so the club itself is not carrying the debts," she said. "That will help with the bank financing required for the new stadium. Both this and the club are UK operating organisations and UK tax will be paid on all UK transactions."

That, approximately £400m to build a 56,000-seat stadium, stores and a podium around it, will be raised by selling naming rights and bank borrowing. The Spurs spokeswoman said the club are now confident enough about securing the funding to envisage putting the construction out to tender in early 2014, and have "cranes on site", beginning to build the new stadium, by the end of next year.

Spurs own the supermarket site too, having assembled it from properties bought gradually over the years. On 27 March, it too was transferred to TH Property in the Bahamas, which is leasing the site to Sainsbury's

The bits in bold are news to me or they're the first time I've seen anyone from the club confirming it.
 

YiddoInPoland

You got some statistical evidence to back that up?
Aug 6, 2011
3,041
6,412
Why is no one kicking up a fuss that an oil rich bunch got a stadium that haf 127 million of public funds, 100 and 27 million!!!!

Ok it was done before they arrived but the regeneration of tottenham will be a fraction of that whith most of the stability comming from the club.
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Apr 1, 2005
41,363
74,893
I only have one problem with the OS and West Ham renting, I think it's a bit cheap. Allegedly the stewarding and policing costs for the stadium will not be paid by West Ham. That's got to be nearly £2m in itself.
 

Flashspur

Well-Known Member
Jul 28, 2012
6,882
9,068
this is in the Guardian....sorry if already posted

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/oct/30/tottenham-new-stadium-local-business-demolition
Tottenham's new stadium: how club can cash in on development plan
• Haringey council set on regenerating deprived area
• Shops and homes to be knocked down to create fans' walkway
The full extent of public contribution to Tottenham Hotspur's planned new stadium project can be revealed for the first time, with the club positioned to benefit from controversial council plans to develop an area opposite the new ground involving the demolition of existing local businesses.
Spurs have bought substantial land in that area, now proposed for residential development, and recently moved ownership of the property offshore, raising the possibility of avoiding corporate capital gains tax when it is sold at a profit – although Spurs deny the transfer was motivated by tax avoidance.
The development, proposed by Haringey council, follows a renegotiation of Spurs' planning permission last year, when the club was released from a £16m commitment to improve transport and community infrastructure, and to build 50% affordable housing in the apartment blocks planned on the site of the current ground.
Tottenham's chairman, Daniel Levy, argued that those requirements were making it difficult to raise the £400m necessary to build the new stadium, and called for the wider development to boost land values and investor confidence in the Tottenham project. The council, determined to bring regeneration to an area which is vibrant but deprived and suffered the riot of 2011, shares the club's belief that their investment will be a major "catalyst" to improve the area, so the concessions were worth making.
A council housing tower block and rows of shops with people living above are to be knocked down to create a wide walkway for Spurs fans from a relocated White Hart Lane station straight to the new 56,000-seat stadium, with its shops, bars and food outlets; the council says on non-matchdays the walkway will be a "mini-town centre" public space.
Tottenhams-redevelopment--001.jpg
Top, the property owned by Tottenham is shown in red; below, the council’s preferred option for redevelopment alongside the new stadium. Graphics: Guardian staff
The council "masterplan", which proposes wholesale flattening of property behind Tottenham High Road West, to be replaced by the walkway, 1,650 new flats and houses, shops, cafes, a library and promised cinema, has been met with utter dismay from business people whose premises would be knocked down.
Spurs stand to profit from the residential development because of the property they have bought in that area in recent years, including the Carbery enterprise park and some 20 shops and flats.
On 27 March, just before the council made the "masterplan" public, for consultation with local residents in April, Tottenham transferred all their property in the High Road West area to TH Property Ltd, a company registered in the Bahamas. That is the Caribbean tax haven home of Joe Lewis, the billionaire currency trader who owns a majority of Spurs via his holding company, Enic International, also registered in the Bahamas. Levy is, with his family, a potential beneficiary of a trust that owns 29% of Enic International in the Bahamas. Levy's salary, £2.2m in 2011-12, is paid by Enic International, which is then repaid by Spurs.
Richard Murphy, the anti-tax avoidance campaigner of Tax Research UK, said this arrangement gives clear potential for corporation tax to be avoided. He said: "It depends on the precise arrangements, but if property here is owned by an offshore company, there is no corporation tax on the gain when the property is sold."
A Spurs spokeswoman confirmed that TH Property Ltd is owned by Enic International, but said the transfer of the properties in Tottenham to a Bahamas-registered company was not to avoid paying UK tax on any profit made when the property is sold, potentially with residential development value.
"The transfer was to clear debts out of our UK companies which had bought the properties, so the club itself is not carrying the debts," she said. "That will help with the bank financing required for the new stadium. Both this and the club are UK operating organisations and UK tax will be paid on all UK transactions."
Business owners whose shops, workplaces and, for those who live above the shops, their homes have been targeted for demolition under the council's "masterplan," have accused Haringey of going too far to please Spurs, in the effort to keep the club in Tottenham and build regeneration around the new stadium.
Hard-pressed local councils are increasingly keen to help Premier League clubs, which have become stand-out multimillion pound success stories in often impoverished neighbourhoods.
Abu Dhabi-owned Manchester City's occupation of the Etihad Stadium, originally built as the City of Manchester stadium for the 2002 Commonwealth Games and converted for the club afterwards, at a total cost of £127m public and lottery money, is regarded by Manchester City council as key to hopes of regenerating post-industrial east Manchester. Liverpool city council is currently threatening to use compulsory purchase orders on remaining property owners refusing to sell and make way for an expanded Anfield football ground; West Ham are benefiting from more than £150m public subsidy for their occupation of the Olympic Stadium in Stratford.
In February 2012, after Levy had sought to move his club out of Tottenham by challenging West Ham for occupation of the Olympic Stadium, Haringey agreed to release Spurs from the £16m commitment to local infrastructure and the 50% affordable housing requirement. The council itself and the mayor of London's office are instead to provide public money for the works, and a 22-storey tower block, Brook House, is being built to the north on Tottenham High Road, all of affordable housing.
When renegotiating with the council, Levy insisted major regeneration had to take place across Tottenham High Road, where Spurs had bought property, if staying in Haringey was to be viable.
"We have long said we could only invest in the area if we could see our commitment supported by others and that there was a real need to maximise the regeneration benefits and lift the wider area," Levy said.
The council agreed then, in February 2012, to produce an "area-wide regeneration masterplan", and that is the one now launched, proposing as its most ambitious option mass clearance of the existing homes and businesses, largely for new apartments.
Tottenham-Hotspur-011.jpg
The site of Tottenham's proposed new ground, next to White Hart Lane. Photograph: Jonny Weeks/The Guardian
In the summer, Levy secured €100m (£86m) from Real Madrid for selling Gareth Bale, and spent £93m on new players, including Roberto Soldado from Valencia and Erik Lamela from Roma (both cost £26m). Spurs argue they had to reinvest the Bale money in players to keep the team competitive while they press on with the new stadium project.
Brian Dossett, whose family-run timber and wood-machinist business has been on High Road since 1948 and employs 20 people, has joined other businesses to fight the plan. "They can't just take our factory and our land, which we have built over so many years' work, to build flats to make money; surely that is theft?" Dossett said.
Haringey council has said it has not yet discussed compensating or relocating businesses in line for demolition, because the "masterplan" is still only a proposal. The redevelopment could take 15 years to achieve, the council said, and Spurs point out that any money potentially made from it forms no part of the funding being assembled to build the new stadium itself.
That, approximately £400m to build a 56,000-seat stadium, stores and a podium around it, will be raised by selling naming rights and bank borrowing. The Spurs spokeswoman said the club is now confident enough about securing the funding to envisage putting the construction out to tender in early 2014, and have "cranes on site", beginning to build the new stadium, by the end of next year.
Spurs are emphasising huge benefits to Tottenham, and the council and local MP David Lammy hope the stadium project will prompt wider regeneration. A new primary school has been built at Brook House, and a university technical college for pupils aged 14-18, sponsored by the club and Middlesex University, is being built above a giant new Sainsbury's supermarket, due to open next month with 250 new jobs, mostly for local people.
Spurs own the supermarket site too, having assembled it from properties bought gradually over the years. On 27 March, it too was transferred to TH Property in the Bahamas, which is leasing the site to Sainsbury's.

• This article was updated on 30 October 2013 to reflect the fact that Joe Lewis is not Daniel Levy's uncle
 

Spursidol

Well-Known Member
Sep 15, 2007
12,636
15,834
Re the Guardian article - No mention of the Tottenham riots forcing the political elite across the biard to decide that a regeneration of Tottenham as the only way forward.

The omission of that fundamental piece of information in the public domain shows how superficially researched this article is.

Has the Daily Star cjhanged its name ?
 

Spursidol

Well-Known Member
Sep 15, 2007
12,636
15,834
this is in the Guardian....sorry if already posted

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/oct/30/tottenham-new-stadium-local-business-demolition
Tottenham's new stadium: how club can cash in on development plan
• Haringey council set on regenerating deprived area
• Shops and homes to be knocked down to create fans' walkway
The full extent of public contribution to Tottenham Hotspur's planned new stadium project can be revealed for the first time, with the club positioned to benefit from controversial council plans to develop an area opposite the new ground involving the demolition of existing local businesses.
Spurs have bought substantial land in that area, now proposed for residential development, and recently moved ownership of the property offshore, raising the possibility of avoiding corporate capital gains tax when it is sold at a profit – although Spurs deny the transfer was motivated by tax avoidance.
The development, proposed by Haringey council, follows a renegotiation of Spurs' planning permission last year, when the club was released from a £16m commitment to improve transport and community infrastructure, and to build 50% affordable housing in the apartment blocks planned on the site of the current ground.
Tottenham's chairman, Daniel Levy, argued that those requirements were making it difficult to raise the £400m necessary to build the new stadium, and called for the wider development to boost land values and investor confidence in the Tottenham project. The council, determined to bring regeneration to an area which is vibrant but deprived and suffered the riot of 2011, shares the club's belief that their investment will be a major "catalyst" to improve the area, so the concessions were worth making.
A council housing tower block and rows of shops with people living above are to be knocked down to create a wide walkway for Spurs fans from a relocated White Hart Lane station straight to the new 56,000-seat stadium, with its shops, bars and food outlets; the council says on non-matchdays the walkway will be a "mini-town centre" public space.
Tottenhams-redevelopment--001.jpg
Top, the property owned by Tottenham is shown in red; below, the council’s preferred option for redevelopment alongside the new stadium. Graphics: Guardian staff
The council "masterplan", which proposes wholesale flattening of property behind Tottenham High Road West, to be replaced by the walkway, 1,650 new flats and houses, shops, cafes, a library and promised cinema, has been met with utter dismay from business people whose premises would be knocked down.
Spurs stand to profit from the residential development because of the property they have bought in that area in recent years, including the Carbery enterprise park and some 20 shops and flats.
On 27 March, just before the council made the "masterplan" public, for consultation with local residents in April, Tottenham transferred all their property in the High Road West area to TH Property Ltd, a company registered in the Bahamas. That is the Caribbean tax haven home of Joe Lewis, the billionaire currency trader who owns a majority of Spurs via his holding company, Enic International, also registered in the Bahamas. Levy is, with his family, a potential beneficiary of a trust that owns 29% of Enic International in the Bahamas. Levy's salary, £2.2m in 2011-12, is paid by Enic International, which is then repaid by Spurs.
Richard Murphy, the anti-tax avoidance campaigner of Tax Research UK, said this arrangement gives clear potential for corporation tax to be avoided. He said: "It depends on the precise arrangements, but if property here is owned by an offshore company, there is no corporation tax on the gain when the property is sold."
A Spurs spokeswoman confirmed that TH Property Ltd is owned by Enic International, but said the transfer of the properties in Tottenham to a Bahamas-registered company was not to avoid paying UK tax on any profit made when the property is sold, potentially with residential development value.
"The transfer was to clear debts out of our UK companies which had bought the properties, so the club itself is not carrying the debts," she said. "That will help with the bank financing required for the new stadium. Both this and the club are UK operating organisations and UK tax will be paid on all UK transactions."
Business owners whose shops, workplaces and, for those who live above the shops, their homes have been targeted for demolition under the council's "masterplan," have accused Haringey of going too far to please Spurs, in the effort to keep the club in Tottenham and build regeneration around the new stadium.
Hard-pressed local councils are increasingly keen to help Premier League clubs, which have become stand-out multimillion pound success stories in often impoverished neighbourhoods.
Abu Dhabi-owned Manchester City's occupation of the Etihad Stadium, originally built as the City of Manchester stadium for the 2002 Commonwealth Games and converted for the club afterwards, at a total cost of £127m public and lottery money, is regarded by Manchester City council as key to hopes of regenerating post-industrial east Manchester. Liverpool city council is currently threatening to use compulsory purchase orders on remaining property owners refusing to sell and make way for an expanded Anfield football ground; West Ham are benefiting from more than £150m public subsidy for their occupation of the Olympic Stadium in Stratford.
In February 2012, after Levy had sought to move his club out of Tottenham by challenging West Ham for occupation of the Olympic Stadium, Haringey agreed to release Spurs from the £16m commitment to local infrastructure and the 50% affordable housing requirement. The council itself and the mayor of London's office are instead to provide public money for the works, and a 22-storey tower block, Brook House, is being built to the north on Tottenham High Road, all of affordable housing.
When renegotiating with the council, Levy insisted major regeneration had to take place across Tottenham High Road, where Spurs had bought property, if staying in Haringey was to be viable.
"We have long said we could only invest in the area if we could see our commitment supported by others and that there was a real need to maximise the regeneration benefits and lift the wider area," Levy said.
The council agreed then, in February 2012, to produce an "area-wide regeneration masterplan", and that is the one now launched, proposing as its most ambitious option mass clearance of the existing homes and businesses, largely for new apartments.
Tottenham-Hotspur-011.jpg
The site of Tottenham's proposed new ground, next to White Hart Lane. Photograph: Jonny Weeks/The Guardian
In the summer, Levy secured €100m (£86m) from Real Madrid for selling Gareth Bale, and spent £93m on new players, including Roberto Soldado from Valencia and Erik Lamela from Roma (both cost £26m). Spurs argue they had to reinvest the Bale money in players to keep the team competitive while they press on with the new stadium project.
Brian Dossett, whose family-run timber and wood-machinist business has been on High Road since 1948 and employs 20 people, has joined other businesses to fight the plan. "They can't just take our factory and our land, which we have built over so many years' work, to build flats to make money; surely that is theft?" Dossett said.
Haringey council has said it has not yet discussed compensating or relocating businesses in line for demolition, because the "masterplan" is still only a proposal. The redevelopment could take 15 years to achieve, the council said, and Spurs point out that any money potentially made from it forms no part of the funding being assembled to build the new stadium itself.
That, approximately £400m to build a 56,000-seat stadium, stores and a podium around it, will be raised by selling naming rights and bank borrowing. The Spurs spokeswoman said the club is now confident enough about securing the funding to envisage putting the construction out to tender in early 2014, and have "cranes on site", beginning to build the new stadium, by the end of next year.
Spurs are emphasising huge benefits to Tottenham, and the council and local MP David Lammy hope the stadium project will prompt wider regeneration. A new primary school has been built at Brook House, and a university technical college for pupils aged 14-18, sponsored by the club and Middlesex University, is being built above a giant new Sainsbury's supermarket, due to open next month with 250 new jobs, mostly for local people.
Spurs own the supermarket site too, having assembled it from properties bought gradually over the years. On 27 March, it too was transferred to TH Property in the Bahamas, which is leasing the site to Sainsbury's.

• This article was updated on 30 October 2013 to reflect the fact that Joe Lewis is not Daniel Levy's uncle


http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2012/jun/16/tottenham-hotspur-delusions-grandeur

looking at another David Conn article on Spurs its clear - he really does not like Lewis/Levy, possibly being oine of Redknapp's media fan club
 

purple8

Active Member
Aug 27, 2005
191
188
Im liking the plans . I would much rather grab a burger or chick king in the new retail area and eat on the nice grassy area in front of the new cafe and restaurant area. with regards to the robbery comment . unfortunately many people still do not realize that you never own your land or building it belongs to the Crown. you own the freehold. hence why the council can purchase whatever land they wish
 

dazzle

Well-Known Member
Apr 10, 2010
133
290
The video below was linked-to in the article in case anyone missed it.

It's unfortunate that a few businesses will have to relocate, but none of the idiots interviewed from local businesses seemed to care about improving the area at all - they seem happy to continue living in a shithole as long as they don't have to move to new premises. Anyway, many of these businesses will get bigger shiny new digs if the NDP business relocations are anything to go by.

These NIMBYs can do one, in my opinion.

 

TheChosenOne

A dislike or neg rep = fat fingers
Dec 13, 2005
47,877
49,713
Did Woolwich get a lot of stick when they uprooted (not from Woolwich from the Library) ?

Does they give a fuck about local business in Drayton Park or the impact on locals and local shops ?

Did they fuck.

Did they comply with all their promises to assist local regeneration ?

Did they get the name "Arsenal" taken down from Gillespie Road tube station - No they effin didn't.

Sod David Conn and the donkey he rode in on.
 

LeSoupeKitchen

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2011
3,102
7,621
Along a similar theme to my previous post - are we in a rush to get a new stadium? We seem to be alright financially so is it essential we get a stadium built soon? If London were promised a Franchise in 2020, would Levy wait?
 

Stoof

THERE IS A PIGEON IN MY BANK ACCOUNT
Staff
Jun 5, 2004
32,220
64,274
I don't know an awful lot about CPOs - but have worked for landlord-developers in relation to development sites.

When there are troublesome freeholders/tenants, they tend to get compensated awfully well for having someone build a tower in their back garden (etc.) - surely these people are going to be compensated HANDSOMELY?

I know that's not particularly the point.
 

beats1

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2010
30,006
29,551
I don't know an awful lot about CPOs - but have worked for landlord-developers in relation to development sites.

When there are troublesome freeholders/tenants, they tend to get compensated awfully well for having someone build a tower in their back garden (etc.) - surely these people are going to be compensated HANDSOMELY?

I know that's not particularly the point.
IIRC the CPO's normally tend to be lower than the offers before them as the council will give the market value and probably a percentage on top

Whereas normally the develop would likely to give a higher offer in order to get the project going because time=money instead of going through that whole process
 

absolute bobbins

Am Yisrael Chai
Feb 12, 2013
11,650
25,962
I see no objections from local businesses that are unique to the area, nothing that will survive in better premises elsewhere?
A tattoo shop with a flat above it? Couldn't be placed anywhere else on the highroad? A joinery business wouldn't be better suited to somewhere around LondonWaste or Leeside Road(?) in purpose built industrial facilities?

It's not like the council would just kick them out anyway, there will be massive help available to those that want it with everything from marketing to accounting to make sure that the businesses will be able to flourish in their new locations.

But hey, at least it kind of deflects from a few uninspiring performances
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Apr 1, 2005
41,363
74,893
I can understand people being upset with having to move. These are peoples homes. But this needs to be done for the benefit of the area.
People will call for investment and improvements to their area but then campaign against it if it directly effects them.
It will go ahead and people will have to adjust.
 

worcestersauce

"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope
Jan 23, 2006
26,895
45,044
I like the way it keeps calling the council's regeneration scheme its "masterplan" I keep thinking it was dreamed up b an oriental master villain stroking a furry white cat...."you'll never save chick king now mister Bond" .
 
Top