Mayor Boris urges Spurs to boost riot-hit Tottenham by pressing on with new stadium

MattyP

Advises to have a beer & sleep with prostitutes
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
13,959
#23
I've never seen anything concrete on how much they were given but it's discussed here:-

http://glory-glory.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=34333&start=4660
And dismissed a page or so later.

I've looked all over and apart from Levy saying it and some forums suggesting it, I can't for the life of me find anything that backs up Levy's claim of public funding. At least not direct public funding.

Not saying it didn't happen, just that everything I have found to date doesn't exactly back it up. There may be some indirect stuff floating about, but again it's not obvious to find. I'd imagine Levy is using TfL funded tube improvements as public funding, despite the fact that the Goons also handed over £10m for this.
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
32,649
#25
There would have been a level of indirect public funding, otherwise Levy wouldn't have mentioned it (yes I do believe he knows what he's talking about, he is good mates with Dein and I'm guessing he talked about the new stadium with him), also he would have been shot down as lying.
 

nightgoat

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2005
Messages
24,604
#27
I'd imagine Levy is using TfL funded tube improvements as public funding, despite the fact that the Goons also handed over £10m for this.
I thought they'd gone halves with TfL on the tube upgrades... There was a bit of a kerfuffle after it had been built because Le Arse had allegedly defaulted on their half...
 
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
19,262
#28
Even if Arsenal got money, the fact is the economic landscape is wholly different now. This government, like it or not, is cutting to the bone and the fact we are getting anything at all is something. £17m together with the riot fund is not to be sniffed at.
 

jonnyrotten

SC Supporter
Joined
Aug 16, 2006
Messages
1,055
#29
People who are complaining about this offer need to come back to reality. £17m in these times is very good, all things considered. Some schemes over the last few years have been mid-construction when millions of public funding has been pulled, completely flatlining the project! Comparing our developing with Arsenal's is ridiculous. Different economic conditions, different Governments. What is surprising is how Boris Johnson, who must be fully aware that we are awaiting the outcome of our Round 2 Regional Growth Fund bid very shortly (he fully supported it), is now saying that there is no more public funding for our scheme. He must have had a steer from Nick Clegg (decision-maker on the RGF) that our bid has failed.
 
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
19,262
#30
People who are complaining about this offer need to come back to reality. £17m in these times is very good, all things considered. Some schemes over the last few years have been mid-construction when millions of public funding has been pulled, completely flatlining the project! Comparing our developing with Arsenal's is ridiculous. Different economic conditions, different Governments. What is surprising is how Boris Johnson, who must be fully aware that we are awaiting the outcome of our Round 2 Regional Growth Fund bid very shortly (he fully supported it), is now saying that there is no more public funding for our scheme. He must have had a steer from Nick Clegg (decision-maker on the RGF) that our bid has failed.
Yep, this is what I surmised too. Interesting to see what Levy's next move will be. £!7m + £8m riot fund is a pretty good deal. Would have been nice to get some RFG money on top, but it is still a pretty good deal.
 

Achap

Active Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
492
#31
Quoted from where?
This is the reply I received from the Club when I asked about this:

"There is a difference between public sector support and funding, or 'state aid'. There were elements of infrastructure delivered by the public sector through special partnership that, had they not been done, would have made the stadium undeliverable and unviable.
As part of the Arsenal project, there were a number of regeneration partnerships that were formed between Arsenal and the Housing associations, Arsenal and TFL and the LDA and Islington and The LDA and TFL.
Arsenal were part of a regeneration partnership which helped the Arsenal regeneration scheme become more viable and brought a substantial amount of public money to the wider scheme.
Money went into supporting affordable housing (£60 million) improving access (£5 million ) and improving transport( £7 million).
I hope this helps to answer your query on this matter.
Many thanks again,
The Northumberland Development Project team"


The accountants on here can pick the bones out of this statement, and inform us if the Club is telling the truth or whether they are misleading us.
 

dav3j

SC Supporter
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
2,995
#32
This is the reply I received from the Club when I asked about this:

"There is a difference between public sector support and funding, or 'state aid'. There were elements of infrastructure delivered by the public sector through special partnership that, had they not been done, would have made the stadium undeliverable and unviable.
As part of the Arsenal project, there were a number of regeneration partnerships that were formed between Arsenal and the Housing associations, Arsenal and TFL and the LDA and Islington and The LDA and TFL.
Arsenal were part of a regeneration partnership which helped the Arsenal regeneration scheme become more viable and brought a substantial amount of public money to the wider scheme.
Money went into supporting affordable housing (£60 million) improving access (£5 million ) and improving transport( £7 million).
I hope this helps to answer your query on this matter.
Many thanks again,
The Northumberland Development Project team"


The accountants on here can pick the bones out of this statement, and inform us if the Club is telling the truth or whether they are misleading us.
Sorry to link to here, but... http://www.arsenal.com/emirates-stadium/community-and-regeneration/new-homes

It looks like there are an awful lot of new housing developments associated with the Scumirates, and these involved the engagement of a specific not-for-profit housing trust as well. All I have seen comparable to this in our plans is the small block on Park Lane, and while the OS talks about "affordable" housing, this scheme does not seem to be of a similar scale to what the scum did.

Given the current financial climate, the difference in scale of our housing developments and the lack of tube upgrades, I wouldn't say £17m is bad at all.
 

sloth

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
8,995
#33
Sorry to link to here, but... http://www.arsenal.com/emirates-stadium/community-and-regeneration/new-homes

It looks like there are an awful lot of new housing developments associated with the Scumirates, and these involved the engagement of a specific not-for-profit housing trust as well. All I have seen comparable to this in our plans is the small block on Park Lane, and while the OS talks about "affordable" housing, this scheme does not seem to be of a similar scale to what the scum did.

Given the current financial climate, the difference in scale of our housing developments and the lack of tube upgrades, I wouldn't say £17m is bad at all.
I haven't the facts or figures to hand so this will be the gist rather than gospel on what happened, but basically we wanted to build twice as many houses as we were given permission for by the borough (300 instead of 150? that's a hazy recollection tbh).

In any new development there's a requirement to build a certain amount of affordable housing, a very good policy imo.

Thus if Arsenal were helped with the affordable housing part of their development (as in the bit where there was cost but no profit) and had their plans pushed through as they were rather than reduced as with us, then it's easy to see how that would have gone a significant way to helping make their development affordable in a way that ours hasn't been.
 

spud

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2003
Messages
4,246
#34
From what I have been able to ascertain, they received zero, nada, zip, diddly squat in the way of direct public funding.
There is a page (somewhere) on TFL's web site where they proudly announce £50 million of infrastructure improvements in co-ordination with what was, at that time, the goons' Cashburden Grove project.
 

L.A. Yiddo

Not in L.A.
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
5,586
#35
There is a page (somewhere) on TFL's web site where they proudly announce £50 million of infrastructure improvements in co-ordination with what was, at that time, the goons' Cashburden Grove project.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/static/corporate/media/newscentre/archive/3549.html

Transport for London (TfL) today announced details of a £50m transport boost to support Arsenal Football Club's new Emirates stadium and to benefit the local community.

60 per cent of the stadium's 60,000 spectators will travel to and from the stadium by Tube
The improvements, part of TfL's £10 billion Investment Programme, include funding for bus, road, cycle and pedestrian improvements and passenger information.

Also included is a contribution towards the £10 million Finsbury Park Interchange which will be completed later this year, delivering major improvements to passengers connecting between London Bus, London Underground and National Rail services.

A travel plan is in place for fans travelling to the new stadium. Spectators will be encouraged to use Arsenal, Highbury & Islington and Finsbury Park stations, all within easy walking distance of the new stadium.

Holloway Road station will have restricted access before and after stadium events.

Richard Parry, London Underground Director of Strategy said: "TfL has worked closely with Arsenal FC, Islington Council and the Metropolitan Police to ensure that arrangements are in place to support all those travelling to Arsenal's new stadium and to benefit the local community.

"The plans will ensure safe and reliable access to and from three stations - Arsenal, Finsbury Park and Highbury & Islington - all within easy walking distance of the new stadium, as well as the many bus routes that serve the area.

"Anyone travelling to the new stadium or the local area will be able to go by public transport."

<h2> Station capacity</h2>

It is expected that 60 per cent of the stadium's 60,000 spectators will travel to and from the stadium by Tube. An assessment of train and station capacity shows that there is adequate overall capacity to get the estimated 36,000 spectators who will use the Tube to get to and from the stadium.

TfL will be encouraging spectators to make greater use of the Victoria line, with Highbury & Islington station being 10 to 15 minutes walk away from the new stadium.

King's Cross St. Pancras station is the point of entry for a large percentage of stadium traffic as it has access to both lines, thus enabling TfL to direct passengers accordingly through passenger announcements, signage and marshalling.

Increased staffing

Staffing will be increased at Underground stations on match days for the benefit and safety of passengers and additional trains will also operate on the Piccadilly line on match days from September.

TfL is also considering undertaking capacity and accessibility improvements at both Highbury & Islington and Finsbury Park stations.

TfL looked in detail at increasing capacity at Holloway Road, however, it was found that even high cost investment would not result in effective capacity improvements.

Even if station capacity could be increased, after Arsenal stadium events westbound Piccadilly line trains would be very busy when they reached Holloway Road, as spectators would use Finsbury Park and Arsenal stations further east along the line.

Restrictions

Holloway Road station is served only by lifts, and was not designed for use by the heavily-peaked passenger flows that are generated by a football stadium.

Consequently, it will be necessary to introduce the following restrictions:

From approximately 90 minutes before the start of any event at the new stadium, the station will be closed to all incoming customers;
All westbound trains will stop and customers will be allowed to exit the station unless overcrowding occurs
No eastbound trains will stop at the station for at least an hour prior to any event
At kick-off, the station will resume normal operations with the train service stopping as normal east and westbound, and customers will be able to enter and exit as normal
Approximately 15 minutes before the final whistle the station will again go into exit only operation but with trains stopping normally both east and westbound. At this point no customers wi
In May 2002, planning permission was granted to Arsenal Football Club (AFC) by London Borough of Islington to build a new stadium on a nearby site at Ashburton Grove. The stadium scheduled to open in August 2006 will have a capacity of 60,000
Conditions of planning permission require Arsenal Football Club to produce a Travel Plan to be agreed with all the relevant authorities including TfL, British Transport Police, Metropolitan Police (MPS) and LB Islington. The purpose of the Plan is to seek to encourage 80 per cent of spectators travel to the stadium by public transport. Arsenal's transport consultants Steer Davies Gleave have prepared the Travel Plan
The key aim of the Travel Plan is to accommodate spectators travelling to and from the new stadium while minimising effects on local residents
It was agreed, in consultation with the Mayor, LDA, LB Islington and AFC, that TfL would investigate the feasibility of capacity enhancement schemes at Highbury & Islington and Finsbury Park stations, all of which are within easy walking distance of the new stadium
The MPS will take the lead, working with TfL, on crowd management and queuing on match days
 

SpurSince57

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2006
Messages
45,214
#36
The Goons were supposed to be paying for escalators at Holloway Road, but did a double-take at the estimates and pulled out of the commitment. They were also meant to be subsidising weekend services to Drayton Park, but that didn't happen either.
 

Adam456

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2005
Messages
3,726
#37
Back to the Boris offer:

Certainly think that this isn't the final offer and that we can take it down to the wire just before the 18th

That said (and acknowledging that we've made some enemies in the Olympic/athletic world) would be interested to know what would be the result if the OS bidding were to be re-run. In particular if one or more of the following occurred:

a. Newham were forced to offer us the same 'loan' of £40m or decided to pull out completely due to the bad publicity/possible waste of taxpayers' money (bear in mind we'll will be right in the middle of another credit crunch so money will be tight and there's no way Wham would get alternative funding)

b. The running track were written into the contract long term - we all know that one of the porn barons previously said that you could NEVER watch football over a running track and they are just saying whatever is needed to secure the stadium

c. We were to add removable seating over the track to our bid
d. Wham don't look like getting another season in the Crapionship
e. The committee membership was 'freshened' and wasn't so biased towards Seb Coe cronies and East London business figures with a lot to lose from voting against Wham

f. We still offered to renovate CP as a training legacy
 

sloth

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
8,995
#38
We won't get the OS. But we may ensure West Ham don't. If their bid was contingent on the Newham loan the without it they may not be able to afford it. In which case it will become a white elephant around the necks of UK Athletics.

What may come of it however is that the running track is written in as non-negotiable in the lease, thus preventing West Ham being able to get rid of it at a future date. This would be good for us too.

What interests me though is what happens if we see the JR through and either win or lose it. It strikes me that the Mayor's office would find it very hard to justify withdrawing the offer of funding as that would have made it a bribe to drop the case. The offer surely cannot be contingent on us dropping the JR? If it were to be withdrawn I'm pretty sure our club's lawyers would have a field day with City Hall and Boris might find himself out of the OS frying pan and into the NDP fire.

With Levy a the helm you can imagine them being well and truly shafted by the time its finished with all sorts of compensation being paid out for us to just drop the case and go away.

Of course the other thing the Mayor and Haringey must have factored in is that just because we didn't get the OS doesn't mean we'll either go ahead with the NDP (especially if it remains unaffordable) or remain in Haringey. The cheapest way for them to redevelop the north of the borough is to get us to do it for them. Without us there remains weeping sore on the north face of London.

It strikes me that the Mayor's and the Minister's recent comments, far from heaping pressure on us have in fact boxed them into a corner. I wouldn't be surprised to see us going ahead with the JR because it might gain us the most.

If we look like we will then almost certainly the Mayor will have to come back with a better offer.
 

Adam456

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2005
Messages
3,726
#39
Good points Sloth.

But I'm thinking, if you assume that the running track (which we apparently won't accept) will now be written in and that it would look like too much of a bribe if they withdraw the NDP offer then perhaps they have little to gain by offering us any more. Chances of us going outside Haringey other than the OS are slim right. And do nothing at all is not really an option in the long run. I know there was something about Enfield and the Lee Valley years ago but would we screen want to try to get permission when we had such a hard time trying to built on the shyte around WHL.

Anyway, really hope we do go through with the JR. Will be interesting to see if Levy can turn the takes yet again
 

Adam456

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2005
Messages
3,726
#40
Good points Sloth.

But I'm thinking, if you assume that the running track (which we apparently won't accept) will now be written in and that it would look like too much of a bribe if they withdraw the NDP offer then perhaps they have little to gain by offering us any more. Chances of us going outside Haringey other than the OS are slim right. And do nothing at all is not really an option in the long run. I know there was something about Enfield and the Lee Valley years ago but would we screen want to try to get permission when we had such a hard time trying to built on the shyte around WHL.

Anyway, really hope we do go through with the JR. Will be interesting to see if Levy can turn the takes yet again
 
Top