$hoguN
Well-Known Member
- Jul 25, 2005
- 26,686
- 34,861
Called it...
This was always going to happen as a few of the OPLC board had a conflict of interest.
New Stadium Details And Discussions
- Thread starter fozzi44
- Start date
Called it...
This was always going to happen as a few of the OPLC board had a conflict of interest.
WhiteStripe
Get out of my club you cretin!
- Aug 23, 2006
- 14,219
- 5,013
Please let it be overturned...if it was (which it wont be) then we would not have to set ourselves back at least 3, maybe 4 years.
WhiteStripe
Get out of my club you cretin!
- Aug 23, 2006
- 14,219
- 5,013
Just think, we'd be in the new stadium in 2 seasons time.
WhiteStripe
Get out of my club you cretin!
- Aug 23, 2006
- 14,219
- 5,013
But the wrong stadium!
Any stadium other than WHL would be the wrong stadium.
$hoguN
Well-Known Member
- Jul 25, 2005
- 26,686
- 34,861
I agree, any stadium other than WHL will not feel like home. However, the need to move stadium outweighs the emotion that makes us want to stay imo. So like I said I hope we manage to get the decision over-turned for both our sake and Leighton Orient's.
WhiteStripe
Get out of my club you cretin!
- Aug 23, 2006
- 14,219
- 5,013
100% agree. Emotion was there fighting my rational mind at first, but now, I can see clearly.
fozzi44
Well-Known Member
- Feb 5, 2006
- 1,435
- 37
- Thread starter
- #5,769
erm - what planet do you live on. We all know Levy has stated that due to spiraling costs the project is unviable in its current guise. Jeez - get over it ffs. If we wanna move on as a club we need a bigger stadium - if that is actually in tottenham or in close proximity it shouldnt matter a damn.
$hoguN
Well-Known Member
- Jul 25, 2005
- 26,686
- 34,861
He lives near the stadium so will always have a skewed opinion of the whole thing as the club leaving the area could have an affect on his life
kcmei
Well-Known Member
- Aug 9, 2008
- 7,112
- 1,330
Premier League - Spurs take legal action over stadium
Wed, 30 Mar 13:39:00 2011
Email
Print
Tottenham Hotspur are taking Olympic chiefs to court over the decision to hand the 2012 stadium to fellow Premier League club West Ham United after the Games.
RELATED LINKS
Pics: Would you watch football here?
Tottenham club page
West Ham club page
The Olympic Park Legacy Company, which approved West Ham's bid ahead of Spurs last month, confirmed Tottenham are going ahead with a judicial review, the BBC said.
Tottenham informed the OPLC of their challenge this week, as construction on the Olympic Stadium was completed.
A judge will now review the lawfulness of the decision.
Reuters
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/30032011/58/premier-league-spurs-legal-action-stadium.html?
Wed, 30 Mar 13:39:00 2011
Tottenham Hotspur are taking Olympic chiefs to court over the decision to hand the 2012 stadium to fellow Premier League club West Ham United after the Games.
RELATED LINKS
Pics: Would you watch football here?
Tottenham club page
West Ham club page
The Olympic Park Legacy Company, which approved West Ham's bid ahead of Spurs last month, confirmed Tottenham are going ahead with a judicial review, the BBC said.
Tottenham informed the OPLC of their challenge this week, as construction on the Olympic Stadium was completed.
A judge will now review the lawfulness of the decision.
Reuters
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/30032011/58/premier-league-spurs-legal-action-stadium.html?
bigturnip
Tottenham till I die, Stratford over my dead body
- Oct 8, 2004
- 1,640
- 49
Levy should just man up and accept defeat, it's making him look bitter and will do no good for the club.
SpurSince57
Well-Known Member
- Jan 20, 2006
- 45,213
- 8,229
Get over what?
Yes, I know he made a vague statement about 'spiralling costs'. He wasn't terribly specific about what these were, however (to say the least), and hasn't been since. Are you telling me you weren't just a little surprised when the initial announcement about non-viability was made just after planning permission was granted? I can tell you that Haringey Council were.
And now it's sour grapes and a judicial review. Whoopee!
SpurSince57
Well-Known Member
- Jan 20, 2006
- 45,213
- 8,229
Actually, it will have no effect on me at all—indeed I'll be spared the massive disruption the building will inevitably cause, matchday traffic hassles, et cetera. However, it will have a massive effect on the area and the lives of thousands of others; that does concern me.
sloth
Well-Known Member
- Mar 7, 2005
- 9,018
- 6,900
That's a new one on me! Sounds interesting anyway...
I pretty much agree with your analysis of where it went wrong, but reject your hypothesis that when something's difficult and subsequently not achieved, it follows that the failure must be attributable to wrong or missing actions. Instead I think it is simply that the thing attempted was difficult.
Specifically when it came to the bid, our proposal involved leaving one borough and a financial mess behind, moving into another borough and the territory of another club (who's fans will also represent a large section of the voters in that borough), pissing off the golden balls athletics lobby (whom the BBC adore, many of whom work for the BBC) and taking down the Olympic Stadium (which would just seem wrong to the majority of the uninformed, but never shy to show its indignation, British public).
Quite frankly the PR battle was un-winnable in those circumstances and by far the best policy would have been to keep your head down and not engage.
The difficult thing we were trying, was to win the bid in the face of all the issues you highlight. As far as I can see our sole chance relied on the OPLC finding that West Ham's bid was non-sustainable. If they concluded that the financials didn't stack up then it would mean that West Ham's bid met none of the five criteria, as no matter what they promised they wouldn't be able to deliver.
I'm a quantitative sports analyst.
sloth
Well-Known Member
- Mar 7, 2005
- 9,018
- 6,900
I kind of agree. I can't see what he's trying to achieve. There's not a chance that we get the decision over-turned and were we to, there'd bound to follow years and years of legal wrangling.
The only other explanation is that there's a sub-plot going on here, though what that could be is anyone's guess (cue SP
.
bigturnip
Tottenham till I die, Stratford over my dead body
- Oct 8, 2004
- 1,640
- 49
The Games won't even be over then. Or maybe you've got visions of us playing while all the wheelchairs are whizzing round the outside.
WhiteStripe
Get out of my club you cretin!
- Aug 23, 2006
- 14,219
- 5,013
Coolest job title ever...what qualifications do I need?
RichieS
Well-Known Member
- Dec 23, 2004
- 11,916
- 16,436
Just posted this in the thread in the main forum; it's a response to my brother who for some reason likes athletics and was arguing with me via text. The reference to teachers and their pension is because our dad is having to retire from teaching at 56 in order to keep his pension.
http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/news/articles/club-statement-300311.html
So we have another instance of media interference in the process.
Re: "Legacy" - What do you (or I, or anybody) actually know about the West Ham plans? Their entire bid was based on a massive media campaign where they spouted constant drivel about keeping a track and some bollocks about "promises made in the Queen's name".
So the OPLC chose their much safer (in the eyes of the media) bid because it retains the temporary (i.e. the actual post-games plan was to dismantle all of the stadium you can see, leaving just the subterranean part as an athletics arena) structure with a track inside. This is a massive over simplification of the 'legacy'. So when does the stadium actually get to be used for track and field? I don't think West Ham are going to let people stick javelins in their pitch during the season. And all the temporary seating they're going to put over the track isn't exactly going to make it accessible.
In contrast, our £25m (of club money) redevelopment of Crystal Palace into the National Athletics Stadium would have been available 365 days a year for track and field. Yes, it's smaller (25,000 as opposed to the 40,000 that West Ham plan) but that only matters to delusional people such as yourself and Seb Coe who think more than 8 people in this country are interested in athletics (and don't start spouting off about all the applications for Olympics tickets - people want to go because it's the Olympics, not because it's athletics).
The legacy was never about the stadium anyway - it was about trying to get people enthused about athletics rather then it being something that you have to do at school and then mercifully goes away afterwards. West Ham successfully made it about the stadium and nothing more.
Ultimately, West Ham ran a much better PR campaign, to the point where the OPLC had no option but to choose them to avoid getting destroyed by the press. Oh, and it may have had something to do with the number of people who are involved with both the OPLC and Newham Council.
Did I mention as well that the £40m loan that Newham have taken out on behalf of West Ham is underwritten by the taxpayer? And that West Ham are taking up the £35m redevelopment fund, again provided by the taxpayer on top of the £500m the Olympic Park (yes, park, not stadium like the media get away with saying - the stadium was £80m) which, while avaiable to Spurs, we weren't going to use. Do we not think that instead of being given to West Ham, that £75m might have been better spent, I dunno, keeping teachers' final salary pensions so that they aren't forced to retire early?
And finally, as yet there have been NO guarantees from anybody that West Ham will be forced to retain the track. How stupid are people going to feel in a few years time when they tear it up? Oh wait, everyone except you, Seb Coe and the other 6 won't care because athletics will have been forgotten about again.
http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/news/articles/club-statement-300311.html
So we have another instance of media interference in the process.
Re: "Legacy" - What do you (or I, or anybody) actually know about the West Ham plans? Their entire bid was based on a massive media campaign where they spouted constant drivel about keeping a track and some bollocks about "promises made in the Queen's name".
So the OPLC chose their much safer (in the eyes of the media) bid because it retains the temporary (i.e. the actual post-games plan was to dismantle all of the stadium you can see, leaving just the subterranean part as an athletics arena) structure with a track inside. This is a massive over simplification of the 'legacy'. So when does the stadium actually get to be used for track and field? I don't think West Ham are going to let people stick javelins in their pitch during the season. And all the temporary seating they're going to put over the track isn't exactly going to make it accessible.
In contrast, our £25m (of club money) redevelopment of Crystal Palace into the National Athletics Stadium would have been available 365 days a year for track and field. Yes, it's smaller (25,000 as opposed to the 40,000 that West Ham plan) but that only matters to delusional people such as yourself and Seb Coe who think more than 8 people in this country are interested in athletics (and don't start spouting off about all the applications for Olympics tickets - people want to go because it's the Olympics, not because it's athletics).
The legacy was never about the stadium anyway - it was about trying to get people enthused about athletics rather then it being something that you have to do at school and then mercifully goes away afterwards. West Ham successfully made it about the stadium and nothing more.
Ultimately, West Ham ran a much better PR campaign, to the point where the OPLC had no option but to choose them to avoid getting destroyed by the press. Oh, and it may have had something to do with the number of people who are involved with both the OPLC and Newham Council.
Did I mention as well that the £40m loan that Newham have taken out on behalf of West Ham is underwritten by the taxpayer? And that West Ham are taking up the £35m redevelopment fund, again provided by the taxpayer on top of the £500m the Olympic Park (yes, park, not stadium like the media get away with saying - the stadium was £80m) which, while avaiable to Spurs, we weren't going to use. Do we not think that instead of being given to West Ham, that £75m might have been better spent, I dunno, keeping teachers' final salary pensions so that they aren't forced to retire early?
And finally, as yet there have been NO guarantees from anybody that West Ham will be forced to retain the track. How stupid are people going to feel in a few years time when they tear it up? Oh wait, everyone except you, Seb Coe and the other 6 won't care because athletics will have been forgotten about again.
