New Stadium Details And Discussions

Archibald&Crooks · Nov 5, 2014

worcestersauce said:
OOH! You just called SS57 a gullible fuck!!!
Prepare to be knobbed cornelius. Unbefuckinglievable, some people never learn.

I'm sure Mike will leave it to the mods to deal with. He's far too long in the tooth to get involved in all that :sneaky:

brasil_spur · Nov 5, 2014

cornelius knob said:
If you really do believe all this cock about the Olympic stadium and Wembley are not being feasible then you really are one gullible fuck. I assume that you also believe the Archway fiasco is a genuine thorn in the side of Enics grand plans for us, and not the convenient delaying factor most unbiased observers percieve it to be. Every Media outlet without any Spurs bias., every neutral obeserver who`s shown an interest in the shambles is calling it to be exactly that. A fucking shambles. ENIC, fronted by Daniel Levy, have made a total fucking mess of the whole stadium redevelopement the club so badly needed when they took control. No-one else. Not Archway, not the fans, not the council, not Wembley, not Pickles. But ENIC. Accept it.

Hi mods, can we just ban this guy already, he really brings the whole tone of the forum down and i can't imagine anywhere else being as tollerable with this kind of tripe and abuse as we are.

SpurSince57 · Nov 5, 2014

cornelius knob said:
If you really do believe all this cock about the Olympic stadium and Wembley are not being feasible then you really are one gullible fuck. I assume that you also believe the Archway fiasco is a genuine thorn in the side of Enics grand plans for us, and not the convenient delaying factor most unbiased observers percieve it to be. Every Media outlet without any Spurs bias., every neutral obeserver who`s shown an interest in the shambles is calling it to be exactly that. A fucking shambles. ENIC, fronted by Daniel Levy, have made a total fucking mess of the whole stadium redevelopement the club so badly needed when they took control. No-one else. Not Archway, not the fans, not the council, not Wembley, not Pickles. But ENIC. Accept it.

I really can't be bothered to go over the reasons Wembley is out of the question. To repeat, if you haven't understood them by now, you never will, and as you clearly don't believe them anyway, what would be the point? At the moment the situation with the Olympic Stadium is that West Ham have made it crystal clear that they will veto any application we may make to share it; BoJo was repeatedly pressed over the issue at mayor's question time two weeks ago and refused to give a straight answer when asked if they can do this, merely promising to look into the legal issues involved. Even if it turns out that they can't block us, they'll be sure to challenge it in court. Is that clear enough for you?

Just who are these 'unbiased' and 'neutral' observers'? Ill-informed dicks like the amateur 'journalist' whose pisspoor article you referenced? Perhaps you could name some more. While you're at it, perhaps you could name some of these media outlets that have a pro-Spurs bias.

Preparatory work is going ahead, by the way, with foundation trenches being excavated and boreholes for foundation piles being sunk. I spent a few minutes watching just this morning. This, I believe, is technically known as 'breaking ground'. It took just over two years for the Emirates to be built from this point, so we could still be on for 2017-18. Mention of the Emirates reminds me that Arsenal started casting around for a new location in 1997 and didn't acquire Ashburton Grove for another three years, and it was four years on from that that work actually began, so we're still on a similar schedule.

Mister Jez · Nov 5, 2014

SpurSince57 said:
I really can't be bothered to go over the reasons Wembley is out of the question. To repeat, if you haven't understood them by now, you never will, and as you clearly don't believe them anyway, what would be the point? At the moment the situation with the Olympic Stadium is that West Ham have made it crystal clear that they will veto any application we may make to share it; BoJo was repeatedly pressed over the issue at mayor's question time two weeks ago and refused to give a straight answer when asked if they can do this, merely promising to look into the legal issues involved. Even if it turns out that they can't block us, they'll be sure to challenge it in court. Is that clear enough for you?

Just who are these 'unbiased' and 'neutral' observers'? Ill-informed dicks like the amateur 'journalist' whose pisspoor article you referenced? Perhaps you could name some more. While you're at it, perhaps you could name some of these media outlets that have a pro-Spurs bias.

Preparatory work is going ahead, by the way, with foundation trenches being excavated and boreholes for foundation piles being sunk. I spent a few minutes watching just this morning. This, I believe, is technically known as 'breaking ground'. It took just over two years for the Emirates to be built from this point, so we could still be on for 2017-18. Mention of the Emirates reminds me that Arsenal started casting around for a new location in 1997 and didn't acquire Ashburton Grove for another three years, and it was four years on from that that work actually began, so we're still on a similar schedule.

The pikeys only have a right to veto for the first year of their tenancy, after that they have no rights at all.

THFCSPURS19 · Nov 5, 2014

There's being Anti-ENIC and then there's completely losing the plot Anti-ENIC(ism)

davidmatzdorf · Nov 5, 2014

Mister Jez said:
The pikeys only have a right to veto for the first year of their tenancy, after that they have no rights at all.

I have read this a few times now, but never with an attribution. Where did you get this information and from whom?

It's plausible, but I haven't seen it confirmed by anyone who might actually know.

markiespurs · Nov 5, 2014

davidmatzdorf said:
I have read this a few times now, but never with an attribution. Where did you get this information and from whom?

It's plausible, but I haven't seen it confirmed by anyone who might actually know.

There was something last week where either Gold or Sullivan were asked about us sharing the OS while the Lane is rebuilt. He said that he was open to the idea, but not for the first season of their tenancy.

SpurSince57 · Nov 5, 2014

It was quoted in an Indy article a few weeks ago, but you'd think the mayor would have some idea (on the other hand, it's not entirely surprising that BoJo should turn up to question time unprepared). The Legacy Board seems keen on the idea, but Brady slapped it down back in September, so who knows?

I don't know what Edmonton means when he says that he can't see construction starting next year, because preparatory work began some time ago, so the club must be pretty confident the CPO judgement will go their way and isn't hanging around waiting for it.

cornelius knob · Nov 5, 2014

markiespurs said:
There was something last week where either Gold or Sullivan were asked about us sharing the OS while the Lane is rebuilt. He said that he was open to the idea, but not for the first season of their tenancy.

Sullivan said it in his SSN interview

DiscoD1882 · Nov 5, 2014

davidmatzdorf said:
I have read this a few times now, but never with an attribution. Where did you get this information and from whom?

It's plausible, but I haven't seen it confirmed by anyone who might actually know.

It was also in the paper this morning.

Lilbaz · Nov 5, 2014

Sorry can someone remind me what we are complaining about?

Enic are not going to build the stadium.

Enic are going to build the stadium but we will have to move.

Enic are going to build the stadium but we are going to move to Milton Keynes rather than Wembley or the OS.

It gets all so confusing.

whitesocks · Nov 6, 2014

Wham have “primacy” during the football season under the terms of their 99-year lease.
Now that wording might have been included so that they would not have to reschedule their fixtures around athletics events, concerts and car boot sales.

But wham might also argue that if a far bigger club is playing in the ground, with bigger crowds and maybe europa fixtures too, then they are no longer the primary tenant.

I'm pretty sure that whatever scatter-brained documents Boris and his team drew up, someone could drive a small bus right though the middle of it, so I'm playing my 'no-one really knows' card at this point.

cliff jones · Nov 6, 2014

SpurSince57 said:
It was quoted in an Indy article a few weeks ago, but you'd think the mayor would have some idea (on the other hand, it's not entirely surprising that BoJo should turn up to question time unprepared). The Legacy Board seems keen on the idea, but Brady slapped it down back in September, so who knows?

I don't know what Edmonton means when he says that he can't see construction starting next year, because preparatory work began some time ago, so the club must be pretty confident the CPO judgement will go their way and isn't hanging around waiting for it.

Thanks for the encouraging first hand update from the site itself mate, much appreciated. MK would be bad, but most I think could come round to it for one year if they can see the new temple going up.

worcestersauce · Nov 6, 2014

Lilbaz said:
Sorry can someone remind me what we are complaining about?

Enic are not going to build the stadium.

Enic are going to build the stadium but we will have to move.

Enic are going to build the stadium but we are going to move to Milton Keynes rather than Wembley or the OS.

It gets all so confusing.

Yup! all of them plus the stadium is too long, short, high, low, square, round fat, thin and probably the wrong colour.

cornelius knob · Nov 6, 2014

Roynie said:
My question to you is why would the club (or ENIC) spend so much money on buying land over the last number of years only to delay just as they are about to get the final clearance to build? They would get more money for the club with the new stadium built than just with the planning permission as the aggravation factor in getting it built to someone else's spec. would carry a premium. Not everything in life is a conspiracy you know!

I`ll answer your question as I see it. But remember who/what ENIC is. Its an investment company that will not take unnecessary gambles and always look to maximise their return.

You understandably ask why they would buy so much land around WHL if they had no intention to build. Well, lets remember the Olympic stadium bid. ENIC tabled this bid AFTER the land had been purchased. So, had they been successful in their OS bid, which was indeed their prefered option, they would obviously been looking to sell the current WHL site and all the surrounding land for other, non football related use. The Olympic stadium bid proves, without doubt, that ENIC would have no hesitation in moving the club away from Tottenham if it suited their own interests. How far they would be prepared to move nobody knows. 10 miles ?, 40 miles ? 80 miles ? We just dont know. And if anyone says they do they are lying. This is why I think we should be very wary of any proposed "temporary" move to MK. It is my own belief that ENIC would have no hesitation in allowing this temporary move to become permament, possibly merging with MK, and maybe increasing the capacity of stadium MK to around 51,000. which would be relativey inexpensive to do. I dont know this is going to happen, of course I dont. But given the nature of our current owners, given the lack of progress with the "NEW" stadium, given the lack of investment in the current stadium, given ENIC`s record at previous clubs they have been involved in, and given the very nature of the Olympic stadium bid, this scenario, or something similar, wouldnt surprise me. So, to go back to your question. The fact that the club owns all the surrounding land has been proven to mean nothing. It`s nothing to do with conspiracies, its all to do with facts.
Just for the record, I`m not one of those who believe religiousely we should stay in Tottenham. The club has evolved. most supporters dont live in Tottenham. Personally I think we should move just a few miles North towards the M25 where the transport infrastructure would be so much more suited to the larger capacity the club needs to thrive. But thats just my view.
Back to the point. ENIC will never oversee a new stadium in the WHL area, of that I`m convinced. The costs involved, the commitment involved, the cost involved in securing a team on the pitch able to compete. All this adds up to a gamble that ENIC may never see a return on their investment. A gamble organisations like ENIC are rarely prepared to take

Roynie · Nov 6, 2014

cornelius knob said:
I`ll answer your question as I see it. But remember who/what ENIC is. Its an investment company that will not take unnecessary gambles and always look to maximise their return.

You understandably ask why they would buy so much land around WHL if they had no intention to build. Well, lets remember the Olympic stadium bid. ENIC tabled this bid AFTER the land had been purchased. So, had they been successful in their OS bid, which was indeed their prefered option, they would obviously been looking to sell the current WHL site and all the surrounding land for other, non football related use. The Olympic stadium bid proves, without doubt, that ENIC would have no hesitation in moving the club away from Tottenham if it suited their own interests. How far they would be prepared to move nobody knows. 10 miles ?, 40 miles ? 80 miles ? We just dont know. And if anyone says they do they are lying. This is why I think we should be very wary of any proposed "temporary" move to MK. It is my own belief that ENIC would have no hesitation in allowing this temporary move to become permament, possibly merging with MK, and maybe increasing the capacity of stadium MK to around 51,000. which would be relativey inexpensive to do. I dont know this is going to happen, of course I dont. But given the nature of our current owners, given the lack of progress with the "NEW" stadium, given the lack of investment in the current stadium, given ENIC`s record at previous clubs they have been involved in, and given the very nature of the Olympic stadium bid, this scenario, or something similar, wouldnt surprise me. So, to go back to your question. The fact that the club owns all the surrounding land has been proven to mean nothing. It`s nothing to do with conspiracies, its all to do with facts.
Just for the record, I`m not one of those who believe religiousely we should stay in Tottenham. The club has evolved. most supporters dont live in Tottenham. Personally I think we should move just a few miles North towards the M25 where the transport infrastructure would be so much more suited to the larger capacity the club needs to thrive. But thats just my view.
Back to the point. ENIC will never oversee a new stadium in the WHL area, of that I`m convinced. The costs involved, the commitment involved, the cost involved in securing a team on the pitch able to compete. All this adds up to a gamble that ENIC may never see a return on their investment. A gamble organisations like ENIC are rarely prepared to take

Well, you are entitled to your view, I just don't agree with you. The situation when bids were submitted for the OS changed drastically after the riots. The Government were compelled to invest heavily in the area and that made the NDP much more financially viable than previously had been the case. I believe that the fact that ground has been broken and clearing the site is well underway proves to me that ENIC will build the stadium and time will tell who's right. I don't know if Archway can appeal further after the result of the January hearing is announced. If not then by the end of this season we will know for sure.

Wine Gum · Nov 6, 2014

cornelius knob said:
I`ll answer your question as I see it. But remember who/what ENIC is. Its an investment company that will not take unnecessary gambles and always look to maximise their return.

You understandably ask why they would buy so much land around WHL if they had no intention to build. Well, lets remember the Olympic stadium bid. ENIC tabled this bid AFTER the land had been purchased. So, had they been successful in their OS bid, which was indeed their prefered option, they would obviously been looking to sell the current WHL site and all the surrounding land for other, non football related use. The Olympic stadium bid proves, without doubt, that ENIC would have no hesitation in moving the club away from Tottenham if it suited their own interests. How far they would be prepared to move nobody knows. 10 miles ?, 40 miles ? 80 miles ? We just dont know. And if anyone says they do they are lying. This is why I think we should be very wary of any proposed "temporary" move to MK. It is my own belief that ENIC would have no hesitation in allowing this temporary move to become permament, possibly merging with MK, and maybe increasing the capacity of stadium MK to around 51,000. which would be relativey inexpensive to do. I dont know this is going to happen, of course I dont. But given the nature of our current owners, given the lack of progress with the "NEW" stadium, given the lack of investment in the current stadium, given ENIC`s record at previous clubs they have been involved in, and given the very nature of the Olympic stadium bid, this scenario, or something similar, wouldnt surprise me. So, to go back to your question. The fact that the club owns all the surrounding land has been proven to mean nothing. It`s nothing to do with conspiracies, its all to do with facts.
Just for the record, I`m not one of those who believe religiousely we should stay in Tottenham. The club has evolved. most supporters dont live in Tottenham. Personally I think we should move just a few miles North towards the M25 where the transport infrastructure would be so much more suited to the larger capacity the club needs to thrive. But thats just my view.
Back to the point. ENIC will never oversee a new stadium in the WHL area, of that I`m convinced. The costs involved, the commitment involved, the cost involved in securing a team on the pitch able to compete. All this adds up to a gamble that ENIC may never see a return on their investment. A gamble organisations like ENIC are rarely prepared to take

My recolection of events at the time of the Olympic Stadium bid is that the Planning Meeting that would Approve or Reject the original NPD Planning Application was after the deadline for submission of the Olympic Stadium bids. If the planning application had been rejected and acceptance was by no means a shoe in then the club would have been left with no choice but to look for another site and unless the Olympic bid had been made that option would be off the table. Having submitted the Olympic bid prior to the Haringey Planning meeting it did act as a pretty big stick to push the Council to approve the plans.

Unfortuately we will never know what would have happenned if the Olympic bid would have been successful.

davidmatzdorf · Nov 6, 2014

cornelius knob said:
I`ll answer your question as I see it. But remember who/what ENIC is. Its an investment company that will not take unnecessary gambles and always look to maximise their return.

You understandably ask why they would buy so much land around WHL if they had no intention to build. Well, lets remember the Olympic stadium bid. ENIC tabled this bid AFTER the land had been purchased. So, had they been successful in their OS bid, which was indeed their prefered option, they would obviously been looking to sell the current WHL site and all the surrounding land for other, non football related use. The Olympic stadium bid proves, without doubt, that ENIC would have no hesitation in moving the club away from Tottenham if it suited their own interests. How far they would be prepared to move nobody knows. 10 miles ?, 40 miles ? 80 miles ? We just dont know. And if anyone says they do they are lying. This is why I think we should be very wary of any proposed "temporary" move to MK. It is my own belief that ENIC would have no hesitation in allowing this temporary move to become permament, possibly merging with MK, and maybe increasing the capacity of stadium MK to around 51,000. which would be relatively inexpensive to do. I dont know this is going to happen, of course I dont. But given the nature of our current owners, given the lack of progress with the "NEW" stadium, given the lack of investment in the current stadium, given ENIC`s record at previous clubs they have been involved in, and given the very nature of the Olympic stadium bid, this scenario, or something similar, wouldnt surprise me. So, to go back to your question. The fact that the club owns all the surrounding land has been proven to mean nothing. It`s nothing to do with conspiracies, its all to do with facts.
Just for the record, I`m not one of those who believe religiousely we should stay in Tottenham. The club has evolved. most supporters dont live in Tottenham. Personally I think we should move just a few miles North towards the M25 where the transport infrastructure would be so much more suited to the larger capacity the club needs to thrive. But thats just my view.
Back to the point. ENIC will never oversee a new stadium in the WHL area, of that I`m convinced. The costs involved, the commitment involved, the cost involved in securing a team on the pitch able to compete. All this adds up to a gamble that ENIC may never see a return on their investment. A gamble organisations like ENIC are rarely prepared to take

There's a great deal of fantasy in that post.

Moving to Milton Keynes permanently would be counter-productive financially, because much of THFC's asset value is founded on its location in London. Move the club to MK, without changing anything else, and it would be worth much less. It would be financially insane for ENIC to do that and even more so to merge with MK Dons. Any such plans would be diametrically opposed to ENIC's business model, which is to add value and then sell, not to diminish value by merging two assets into one that would be worth less than the original two. Moving the club out of London would also render the large recent investment in an outer London training facility perverse. They wouldn't have built that where it is, if they were seriously considering leaving London. None of it makes any financial sense.

And the OS bid was a move of desperation, directly caused by the financial crisis. I have laid out the numbers many pages ago in this thread, showing why the banking crisis and the shutdown of lending made previously-profitable and viable developments non-viable, solely because banks that previously demanded that a business plan show a 15% profit were suddenly refusing to fund anything with a margin lower than 25%-30%. That change immediately created a £40m-£60m hole in the NDP business plan and eventually led directly to (amongst other things) the renegotiation of the S.106 Agreement.

If THFC had succeeded in the OS bid, yes, the land assembled near WHL would have been sold off for other purposes, but the notion that the club paid Paul Kemsley millions to assemble land over a period of several years without explicitly intending to develop a stadium there is nuts - unconnected with the real world. The only reason they would have done that was to pursue a stadium development, although I am certain that they also would have explored what else they might do with the land if (for instance) Haringey refused to give planning consent for a new stadium.

I have avoided dealing with the tedious spin that is pasted all over every sentence of your post(s) - just your false statements.

davidmatzdorf · Nov 6, 2014

Roynie said:
...I believe that the fact that ground has been broken and clearing the site is well underway proves to me that ENIC will build the stadium...

A couple of people have posted this and I feel compelled to play devil's advocate and say that it isn't so. THFC will have assessed the costs and benefits of proceeding with the preparatory works in advance of resolving the CPO. They are taking a risk by going ahead, in order to save time and money, but to manage that risk, the contract will have been structured so they can stop after the ground works have been done, if the CPO appeal reaches an unfavourable conclusion.

I am much more encouraged by the letting of the contract for the main structure than I am by the fact that excavations are underway on site, despite the news that there is a break clause in the structural contract, in case the CPO goes wrong. It's still a major sign of intent and one that Mr Knob is determined to ignore.

worcestersauce · Nov 6, 2014

Cornelius,
Surely you can see the difference between simply moving somewhere and building an iconic stadium on its own island in the prestigeous Queen Elizabeth (Olympic) park with direct links to, well, everywhere, Rail, Road Overground underground and international connections literally at the gates of the park and ten minutes from London City Airport.
.

Forums

What's new

Matches

Sportsbook

Members

New Stadium Details And Discussions

Aegina Expat

SC Supporter

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The Speaker of the Transfer Rumours Forum

Front Page Gadfly

SC Supporter

Well-Known Member

Active Member

SC Supporter

Just call me Baz

The past means nothing. This is a message for life

Well-Known Member

"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Front Page Gadfly

Front Page Gadfly

"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope

Similar threads