Fire breaks out at sheet metal firm blocking Tottenham Hotspur's new £100m stadium

Discussion in 'Spurscommunity Front Page News' started by garryparkerschest, Nov 25, 2014.

Comments

Discussion in 'Spurscommunity Front Page News' started by garryparkerschest, Nov 25, 2014.

  1. eddiebailey
    Desperate people commit insurance fraud. Archway have Spurs over a barrel. Why would the owners risk everything by committing a criminal act that could invalidate their insurance and see them in prison?

    Also I would be a little reticent when it comes to speculating about criminal wrongdoing, partly because of the liable laws, but mostly out of common decency.
  2. Drexl
    We have them over a barrel not the other way round

    We have a CPO in our pocket, they have what is generally considered to be a frivolous appeal, experts are agreed that if they lose this appeal they will be refused by the courts permission to take it to any other body

    I am not suggesting it is an inside job, am sure Peter reads this forum, but I disagree that they have us over a barrel, Levy has a royal flush and Archway have a pair of 7s but are trying to make us blink first
  3. eddiebailey
    They may have overplayed their hand, but their trump is time. Spurs would still be prepared to pay over the odds just to get things moving. Far more rational to strike a deal than to torch the place. Investigators are going to be all over this.
  4. Shadydan
    Well yeah, maybe because some Spurs fans on twitter were saying that they hope their business burns to the ground :D
  5. dannyhoddle
    It was bound to happen. We've been throwing matches all season.:facepalm:
    • Funny Funny x 3
    • Winner Winner x 2
  6. Led's Zeppelin
    As an idle speculation (not an accusation) there's a certain logic in the idea that since disgruntled, impatient, hostile to the point of death-threat-issuing Spurs fans are such an obvious yet difficult to pin-down bunch of suspects, an inside job would be a much easier thing to pull off than is usually the case where the most obvious suspect would otherwise normally be a struggling owner.

    I think it's unlikely though. I prefer to think it was a pure accident.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
    • Funny Funny x 4
  7. 2bearis2do
    It's a hugely interesting debate and of course we don't know the ins and outs of the negotiations between Spurs & Archway.

    But it is truly hard to believe that Spurs can relocate 70 odd businesses and pay them a fair amount without too many problems and then ONE business decides that it is NOT a fair amount. I really don't get Archway or the "cards" that they are playing.

    In my mind it comes down to PURE GREED, as simple as that - they have no common-sense argument and Spurs are not willing to pay them a ridiculous sum. Though I would add - Spurs should just pay them off, get them out of the way and move on, we're losing money left right and centre and our own development because of this. I suspect Archway have some sort of ulterior motive for dragging this on and on and on - their moralistic stance is an absolute smokescreen - nothing else makes sense.

    As for the fire - Of course it is all speculation, fingers will be pointed and I'm sure and hope that a diligent investigation will uncover the truth. But it does strike me as very odd that a Sheets Metal Company (who deal with high intensity blow-torches etc every day) could burn down so quickly and ferociously - In two hours the building was practically destroyed. I'd have thought a building like that, in the business it is in would have some automatic sprinklers at the bare minimum.

    Something very suspicious is going on at that place, I don't trust or believe one ounce of what they say on their FB page. Ultimately, either way - let's hope the truth comes out.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. mawspurs
    Hmm could a certain Russian be paying them to stay put? :cautious:
    • Like Like x 1
  9. JoeT
    GREAT post 'Gaz'....nearly broke a rib laughing!!
  10. Gaz_Gammon

    I did just thinking about it.........
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Gaz_Gammon

    The stadium hearing is (i think) planned for Jan 14/15th? That's almost two months away?

    If the factory still needs to be under a crime scene order by that time then the Police need to stand aside and let these guys take over the investigation.

    upload_2014-11-26_10-49-13.jpeg

    There won't be a delay on the hearing. Simple as that, but scaremongers, conspiracy theorists, and soothsayers do need a platform to practice their dark art i suppose.
  12. davidmatzdorf
    My understanding of their legal argument is this:

    The test of validity of the council's CPO is that the stadium development is essential in order for the overall Tottenham regeneration project to go ahead and be successful.

    Unless the overall NDP scheme, including the stadium, is a prerequisite for a successful regeneration of the neighbourhood, the council cannot legitimately argue that there is an overriding benefit to the public that justifies forcing a landowner to sell their land in order that the stadium can be built.

    ASM's solicitors will be arguing that the regeneration could go ahead in the absence of the stadium development and that, therefore, there is no overriding public interest that would justify a CPO.

    That is the same consideration that held up the approval of the CPO in the Secretary of State's office for 15 months: they wanted to be certain that this CPO passed that test.

    It isn't a frivolous argument in principle, it's germane to the law that covers what constitutes a valid CPO, but I find it hard to imagine that any judge who inhabits the real world would be able to conclude that the regeneration scheme would be viable without the half-billion pounds of private sector inward investment that is attached to the NDP.

    The concern, of course, is that quite a few judges do not base their judgments on anything that resembles the real world.
    • Informative Informative x 4
  13. Led's Zeppelin
    As always, very interesting and helpful David. Thanks for taking the time to explain it.

    Do you know whether this works in a similar way to an appeal of a trial verdict, where, as I understand it ,it is essentially a matter of new evidence, or is it more like a judicial review where they look at the same issues all over again and test the procedures and/or judgements involved?
  14. davidmatzdorf
    Thanks. There's quite a bit of discussion on the New Stadium thread about this. It's rather like a judicial review of a planning consent. They can look at whether the procedure was followed correctly and whether the law was interpreted correctly, but not at the amount of the valuation or the specifics of the detailed evidence.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  15. Gaz_Gammon


    So it couldn't be French for arguments sake?...................:wideyed:
  16. holo
    Why 56,250-capacity? Just make bigger than the emirates
  17. Chris_D
    To state the obvious this is a bad situation. Although I think, as I'm sure many others do, that these guys are trying to use the redevelopment to get money out of us at some point we need to reach a deal with them. Either that's done through the courts or we pay them off but no deal means no new ground and we need a new stadium. A business burning down might look like it speeds things up but I have a feeling this will cause more delays.
  18. davidmatzdorf
    The answer is written in about 20 places on the New Stadium thread: transport and safety limitations. That was the maximum number that could be got in and out safely using public transport, including improved buses - but not including building a new underground station, which would have been prohibitively expensive.
    • Informative Informative x 1

Share This Page