JohanTheYid
Well-Known Member
- Sep 21, 2004
- 1,014
- 1,432
The London Corgis
New Stadium Details And Discussions
- Thread starter fozzi44
- Start date
BehindEnemyLines
Twisting a Melon with the Rev. Black Grape
- Apr 13, 2006
- 4,634
- 13,387
The Levy 501's
Spursidol
Well-Known Member
- Sep 15, 2007
- 12,636
- 15,834
http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/news/another-milestone-in-the-regeneration-of-tottenham-070514/
Updare on the Brook House development - provides 222 relatively low cost homes and a school plus I suspect is an enabling development.
Updare on the Brook House development - provides 222 relatively low cost homes and a school plus I suspect is an enabling development.
CoopsieDeadpool
Well-Known Member
- Jun 8, 2012
- 18,257
- 70,419
Hey guys, as some of you know, I do blogs/articles on other sites. I did one yesterday and I got a response from a Stateside Yiddo that, although it isn't info about our stadium, is very much worth sharing, due to those rather 'cognitively challenged' people who constantly beat our owners with a shitty stick. Like I said, it's not about our stadium per se, but it's certainly food for thought for those who love to slag off our owners...................................
"First off, my thanks to Coopsie for taking time out to do the research. For those of us who are somewhat removed from the area, these articles are extremely valuable and are appreciated. Secondly, I just wanted to share with you something from my part of the world. it's only loosely relevant so you don't have to read it if you don't want to,but it is "food for thought"
Back when Cleveland was known as the "Mistake on the Lake", the City Council decided to embark on a Downtown regeneration project, in order to attract new business, and to replace the once important manufacturing industries from which Cleveland had made its name. This involved the creation of new stadia for Baseball, Football and Basketball. Those stadiums were funded in part approx 48% by what became to be known as "the sin tax". This is an extra tax on all alcohol and cigarettes, in the whole of Cuyahoga County. So in effect, the public are responsible for funding a large part of these stadia. The tax has just been renewed for another 20 years, and has been a major source of chagrin for many. The estimated $260M will be used to make improvements to all the stadia. The point is that all these stadia are independent businesses, are owned by billionaires, employ millionaires (In 2006, whilst with the Cleveland Cavaliers, Lebron James, negotiated a 3 year contract worth $60M), benefit from ticket sales, naming rights and all the rest, but still "cry" for public money in order to make repairs. Meanwhile inner city neighborhoods continue to decay rapidly.
Maybe ENIC arn't so bad after all. How would people feel if either Haringay Council raised tax on alcohol etc in order to fund the THFC stadium, or ENIC decided to add a say 5% surcharge to all tickets and merchandising, solely for the stadium build, whilst Lamela gets 50-75k a week for sitting on his "Harris"? I don't smoke, and I never buy alcohol in Cuyahoga County, and like many hardly ever go Downtown for recreation. Unless there is a game or a concert, Downtown Cleveland is "dead" and the City Council wonder why.
Building stadia and capital projects are difficult, costly and time consuming. There are many different ways to "skin the cat", none are perfect, however some are less appealing than others. So let's cut DL some "slack" on this."................
"First off, my thanks to Coopsie for taking time out to do the research. For those of us who are somewhat removed from the area, these articles are extremely valuable and are appreciated. Secondly, I just wanted to share with you something from my part of the world. it's only loosely relevant so you don't have to read it if you don't want to,but it is "food for thought"
Back when Cleveland was known as the "Mistake on the Lake", the City Council decided to embark on a Downtown regeneration project, in order to attract new business, and to replace the once important manufacturing industries from which Cleveland had made its name. This involved the creation of new stadia for Baseball, Football and Basketball. Those stadiums were funded in part approx 48% by what became to be known as "the sin tax". This is an extra tax on all alcohol and cigarettes, in the whole of Cuyahoga County. So in effect, the public are responsible for funding a large part of these stadia. The tax has just been renewed for another 20 years, and has been a major source of chagrin for many. The estimated $260M will be used to make improvements to all the stadia. The point is that all these stadia are independent businesses, are owned by billionaires, employ millionaires (In 2006, whilst with the Cleveland Cavaliers, Lebron James, negotiated a 3 year contract worth $60M), benefit from ticket sales, naming rights and all the rest, but still "cry" for public money in order to make repairs. Meanwhile inner city neighborhoods continue to decay rapidly.
Maybe ENIC arn't so bad after all. How would people feel if either Haringay Council raised tax on alcohol etc in order to fund the THFC stadium, or ENIC decided to add a say 5% surcharge to all tickets and merchandising, solely for the stadium build, whilst Lamela gets 50-75k a week for sitting on his "Harris"? I don't smoke, and I never buy alcohol in Cuyahoga County, and like many hardly ever go Downtown for recreation. Unless there is a game or a concert, Downtown Cleveland is "dead" and the City Council wonder why.
Building stadia and capital projects are difficult, costly and time consuming. There are many different ways to "skin the cat", none are perfect, however some are less appealing than others. So let's cut DL some "slack" on this."................
Yiddosmithy
Active Member
- Jun 16, 2008
- 98
- 158
Just found this on thefightingcock. Not sure how reliable but sounds promising.
For the very first time, I have some interesting inside information about the outcome of the Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO), served on Archway Sheet Metal Works.
I understand that earlier this week, Archway lost the legal challenge against Haringey Council over the CPO that was served on them. Apparently, they were seeking around £3m financial compensation, after rejecting a £1m offer plus nearby new premises, as part of the whole compensation package.
In addition to losing the case, they were ordered to pay the Haringey's legal fees as well as their own, which was also a six-figure sum. I also understand they have had to accept a much lower compensation package of around £500k, and will have to find or build their own new premises.
Now this court case is over, although probably subject to appeal (@@Smoked Salmon will know for certain, as he is much more intelligent than me) I would have thought Eric Pickles should now be able to make the decision for the CPO to proceed. I am reasonably certain that all the other companies served with CPO's have accepted the terms, relocated already or have made plans to move.
Archway were the final ones, and in my opinion very foolish not to accept the original offer and financial compensation package. A regeneration scheme on this scale, in a deprived part of London was always highly likely to proceed, based upon the number of jobs it would create, benefits to the local economy, and the amount of affordable housing that would be constructed.
Hopefully, one small step closer to the construction of our desperately needed new stadium, and I'm glad I have been able to contribute something positive to this thread.
For the very first time, I have some interesting inside information about the outcome of the Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO), served on Archway Sheet Metal Works.
I understand that earlier this week, Archway lost the legal challenge against Haringey Council over the CPO that was served on them. Apparently, they were seeking around £3m financial compensation, after rejecting a £1m offer plus nearby new premises, as part of the whole compensation package.
In addition to losing the case, they were ordered to pay the Haringey's legal fees as well as their own, which was also a six-figure sum. I also understand they have had to accept a much lower compensation package of around £500k, and will have to find or build their own new premises.
Now this court case is over, although probably subject to appeal (@@Smoked Salmon will know for certain, as he is much more intelligent than me) I would have thought Eric Pickles should now be able to make the decision for the CPO to proceed. I am reasonably certain that all the other companies served with CPO's have accepted the terms, relocated already or have made plans to move.
Archway were the final ones, and in my opinion very foolish not to accept the original offer and financial compensation package. A regeneration scheme on this scale, in a deprived part of London was always highly likely to proceed, based upon the number of jobs it would create, benefits to the local economy, and the amount of affordable housing that would be constructed.
Hopefully, one small step closer to the construction of our desperately needed new stadium, and I'm glad I have been able to contribute something positive to this thread.
Last edited:
Stubborn? ...... I think no small amount of greed came into it
- Oct 2, 2004
- 48,257
- 47,322
- Staff
- #10,428
Yup it doesn't sound like they made any attempt to be reasonable and that'll be why they've been ordered to pay costs.
I think they thought they were in a prime negotiating position and have instead been proved pretty spectacularly wrong.
Let's hope this means things can finally move ahead (although I suspect we'll come across something else to hold the whole thing up).
Roynie
Well-Known Member
- Oct 2, 2007
- 3,116
- 3,882
Well, the legal challenge by Archway explains Eric Pickles delay in making a decision. I would expect he will wait until the time to appeal has expired before announcing a decision, unless there is an earlier indication that there won't be one.
I think the time period is 21 days to appeal, unless the lower court has indicated otherwise, and 7 more days to serve the papers. So we have at least another month to wait, probably.
I think the time period is 21 days to appeal, unless the lower court has indicated otherwise, and 7 more days to serve the papers. So we have at least another month to wait, probably.
Rupstoh
Well-Known Member
- Jul 29, 2006
- 3,649
- 456
Well, the legal challenge by Archway explains Eric Pickles delay in making a decision. I would expect he will wait until the time to appeal has expired before announcing a decision, unless there is an earlier indication that there won't be one.
I think the time period is 21 days to appeal, unless the lower court has indicated otherwise, and 7 more days to serve the papers. So we have at least another month to wait, probably.
Try a year! Planning Inspectorate for one are slower than a slug on chilly powder.
beats1
Well-Known Member
- Feb 22, 2010
- 30,024
- 29,598
Tbh a little bit of common sense and research would of found that this shit happens all the time and that taking it to court is going to hurt them more than anyone else
Lilbaz
Just call me Baz
- Apr 1, 2005
- 41,363
- 74,893
His restraining order didn't take long.
Roynie
Well-Known Member
- Oct 2, 2007
- 3,116
- 3,882
Maybe so in normal cases but they are dealing with a wholesale renovation of the Tottenham area, not just some loft conversion! The Political pressure will be on, the different budgets will have time stamps so he will have to make a decision fairly quickly or face the wrath of the Treasury, not to mention BORIS!
Rocksuperstar
Isn't this fun? Isn't fun the best thing to have?
- Jun 6, 2005
- 53,366
- 66,999
As Gobby says, greed played a large part - from what i understood, the club made them a substantial offer before the CPO was even an issue and, even when it did become one, they still included new premises plus compensation - considering where that business is situated with very little room to expand, i was surprised when they turned down the offer which i'm guessing would be on a trading estate somewhere in Haringey, giving them plenty of room to expand. I mean, i don't know if they did, but surely if they didn't like the proposed site they could've found another and suggested that instead?
I dunno, so many things seem to all point to the company owners losing the pounds because they haggled over pennies. They won't even be able to rent a unit the size of their current building with 500k.
davidmatzdorf
Front Page Gadfly
- Jun 7, 2004
- 18,106
- 45,030
Before anyone gets excited, check the date - that was in March 2012.
ginola99
Well-Known Member
- Sep 4, 2005
- 677
- 1,403
My dick is bigger than yours. And how do I know this?
Because I don't have to go about trolling like you. bye bye
spursfan77
Well-Known Member
- Aug 13, 2005
- 46,684
- 104,964
Hasn't this been previously posted and been refuted by an itk. I think it was a month or so ago.
Spursidol
Well-Known Member
- Sep 15, 2007
- 12,636
- 15,834
The poster on The Fighting Cock seems pretty well regarded there, so hope its true and not a wind up.
I'm not a lawyer, and had hoped that one of that bretherin would have commented, but this is my take on it.
Although the poster says its an appeal against the CPO, the detail given does not support that - but it does support an appeal against the level of compensation being offered, and logically I'd have thought Archway would have only appealed against the leve of compensation if it had lost the first round of a lega;l appeal against the issuing of the CPO itself. To appeal that means going to the Court of Human Rights as I understand it - and that would be another six figure punt in terms of legal fees., so not one to undertake unless the case looks robust, and even with my rose tinted specs on I'd suggest that one company objecting to the 'public interest' of renovating/regenerating the whole of Tottenham was a lost caise.
Problem is that court cases are not always published until maybe 3 months after the case is heard, so it could be difficult to check. However the fact that the poster states the level of compensation and costs suggests that the judgement is closer to publication.than the case having just being heard.
The level of compensation is almost certainly 'appealable' but the it looks as if Archway have lost on the argument that a move would injure its business (almost certainly as 500 White Hart Lane was offered, so nearby that the business would not be affected) and that because the business was operating from a small site that it could not argue that the CPO would affect itrs expansion, So the compensation is being calculated on the market value of land, removal costs etc. If I were Levy I'd organise a verbal offer of another quarter or half million if they stop all appeals and go quietly. A good deal for both sides to kill the case and let us contunue building the stadium whilst Archway have enough money to move..
With luck we'll get more updates on further progress in the next couple of months, but if not within say 3 months the court judgement on thius case should have been published. Could be interesting reading !
