New Stadium Details And Discussions

[SpurSince57]

I dont mean to sound disrespectiveful but there is a serious level of naivety running through your post. I dont know if you actually believe everything should be as "black and white" as you make it sound or whether something has been lost in translation when you have tried to make a point in writing.

But i mean come off, I know for a fact that nearly all major developments come in overbudget and that applies to straighforward projects, just look at Wembley. There are many complicated varibales that factor into the total cost and implementation of this project that I can well believe there are a number of factors that have led to increasing costs - I certainly dont expect Levy to come out and list everyone of these to Joe Public.

Why should you have the contract? Lammy said yesterday (i think) that the EH requirements put something like an additional 16m on the project. Whilst this and the TFL situation is significant it pales in comparasin to the the additional cost of borrowing money compared to when the plans where first produced and financing arrangements modelled.

As for your point about everything being forseen? I mean come off it, Levy has the top firms in the sector working on this, they are not going to try and pull a swift one are they?

At the end of the day, Levy has said it is too dear, simple as that. I want a new stadium, if we cant afford it in Tottenham then we need to look elsewhere.

Why should I have the contract? Because I'd be astonished if renovating those properties would cost much more than a couple of million, that's why. £16m? Lammy's talking through his hat. We were talking about a major renovation of Crystal Palace for £35m.

Levy had top advice on our PR for Stratford. He really got his money's worth, didn't he?

If we can't afford a new stadium in Tottenham we can't afford one anywhere.

 

[Misfit]

If we can't afford a new stadium in Tottenham we can't afford one anywhere.

No way man. Everyone knows the Tottenham area is only for the high rollerz. Why do you think it's the Duke of Westminster. That's right, he knew when to call it quits. Leave Tottenham to the big boys. :grin:

Great sentence though. Hope a few more people read and stop and think. Doubtful though.

 

[sloth]

I give up, the world's clearly flat, the sun revolves about the Earth and we're not going ahead with the NDP because [Insert bullshit theory here]

 

[RichieS]

No way man. Everyone knows the Tottenham area is only for the high rollerz. Why do you think it's the Duke of Westminster. That's right, he knew when to call it quits. Leave Tottenham to the big boys. :grin:

Great sentence though. Hope a few more people read and stop and think. Doubtful though.

You don't honestly believe that do you?

Take Stratford as an example - yes, build costs would have been much the same and perhaps we would have had to have made similar 'donations' to TFL BUT the money that we could have recouped through sponsorship, non-football events etc would have been far higher than what we could ever get in Tottenham.

 

[Misfit]

You don't honestly believe that do you?

Take Stratford as an example - yes, build costs would have been much the same and perhaps we would have had to have made similar 'donations' to TFL BUT the money that we could have recouped through sponsorship, non-football events etc would have been far higher than what we could ever get in Tottenham.

Might it be easier outside of Tottenham? Sure, depending on the area, I can go along with that. Can we afford a stadium at all right now? Beginning to have my doubts. But for the fact that a corrupt sporting body somehow picked Nodnol over Paris a few yrs ago, these fanciful dreams of a stadium outside of Tottenham wouldn't even be an issue.

So, where would we be? No chance of a stadium in Stratford and no chance of a stadium in Tottenham. Or in other words, no chance of a stadium.

Unless Levy can find a spot in London where land is cheap, plentiful and has transport links coming out of its fundamental orifice, the situation will remain the same.

Then again, Levy could have seen a nice, easier alternative in Stratford which seems to have been denied, will be going back to the Tottenham option and is doing his legal duty to get the biggest bang for his buck.

If you believe what you say then the only viable way forward in the future is out of Tottenham. You might be right but I don't subscribe to that notion. Not out of any weRN174eva bollox either. I just don't think that the problems are insurmountable. Christ, getting my post delivered to the correct address is enough of a hassle, I would imagine a multi multi-million pound construction project would be even more difficult.

It also seems to, although I'm not saying you personally think it will, assume that the only way to increase our revenue is a new stadium and then everything else is sorted. Which isn't the case either. Liverpool have slightly larger stadium in an uninspiring part of a drab Northern city and mock us mercilessly with their £100m more in annual revenue.

 

[bigturnip]

What i would say however is that anyone with half a brain cell can see that at the very least the TFL requirements, English Heritage Requirements and a recession must have had some bearing on costs?

Correct, but not much of a bearing. The recession will have brought the building costs down slightly. The TfL requirements have added a tiny amount to the costs, I believe the final settlement was £2.7m, and that was a fully foreseeable cost. English Heritage requirements would be a maximum of a couple of million extra and a small redesign of the public space.

The main changes are two things you haven't mentioned, and also not costs, CABE's requirements to lower the number of dwellings and the reluctance to finance the project in the current financial climate.

 

[bigturnip]

I dont mean to sound disrespectiveful but there is a serious level of naivety running through your post. I dont know if you actually believe everything should be as "black and white" as you make it sound or whether something has been lost in translation when you have tried to make a point in writing.

But i mean come off, I know for a fact that nearly all major developments come in overbudget and that applies to straighforward projects, just look at Wembley. There are many complicated varibales that factor into the total cost and implementation of this project that I can well believe there are a number of factors that have led to increasing costs - I certainly dont expect Levy to come out and list everyone of these to Joe Public.

Why should you have the contract? Lammy said yesterday (i think) that the EH requirements put something like an additional 16m on the project. Whilst this and the TFL situation is significant it pales in comparasin to the the additional cost of borrowing money compared to when the plans where first produced and financing arrangements modelled.

As for your point about everything being forseen? I mean come off it, Levy has the top firms in the sector working on this, they are not going to try and pull a swift one are they?

At the end of the day, Levy has said it is too dear, simple as that. I want a new stadium, if we cant afford it in Tottenham then we need to look elsewhere.

Where else is going to be cheaper than Tottenham?

There aren't going to be an other stadiums like the OS built with public money in the foreseeable future, so where exactly is this cheap piece of land that we can build a cheap stadium on?

The reality is without public money it's the NDP or nothing, there just aren't cheaper options anywhere else in London. But as you said it's only a stadium and it doesn't matter where we play why don't we move up North?

 

[Achap]

Some clarification perhaps on the purpose of the pre-action letter to various parties involved in the OS preferred bidder award.

This is the reply to a letter written to the club by a group calling themselves 'Supporting Our Future' which questioned the wisdom of challenging the OPLC.

It seems from this - to me at least - that the challenge is not to overturn the decision, but to recoup costs incurred in a process, the result of which appears to have been a foregone conclusion - whilst simultaneously applying a bit of an arm-twist/guilt trip to Boris.


Fri 01/04/2011 11:13AM

Thank you for your recent email to Daniel which he has read and asked me to reply to on behalf of the Club.

You raise a number of points which I shall answer as fully as possible.
In respect of our pre-action procedural letter to the OPLC and Newham Council - we have written requesting information about a process in which the Club engaged and incurred costs. We have previously requested information from the OPLC and have had that request refused. We find this remarkable given it was a public procurement and bearing in mind that we have never received any written notification whatsoever in respect of the decision taken by the Committee.

We shall await any response before deciding whether or not to take further action.

In continuing to seek an optimum stadium solution (please don't think for a moment that we have taken our foot off the pedal on this) we are, as set out in our Interim Financial Statement, involved in constructive discussions with Haringey Council and the Mayor regarding the feasibility of the NDP and we are actively considering all possible options.

We shall continue to press the Mayor and Ministers for the support we believe is both warranted and necessary for any new stadium scheme we might undertake.

The OPLC has awarded a competitor London Club a 60 000 seater stadium facilitated by substantial public subsidy, public sector investment and grant monies. It will further achieve this without incurring any planning or S106 costs.

In respect of surveying opinions - we have always said that when we have an option on which to consult we shall do so, as we did for the NDP, but we do not feel there is any constructive value in conducting a survey with options that could be wholly undeliverable, simply not feasible ie simply not real options.

We consulted extensively when we proposed the NDP and we are aware it is a fan favourite. Had we been in a position of preferred bidder status for Stratford we absolutely would have consulted on that scheme.

Going forward, we have always said that we would never undertake a capex project which would burden the Club with an unmanageable level of debt that would mean we were unable to invest in the playing side or that could undermine the long-term financial stability of the Club.

We would hope that supporters will acknowledge the pragmatism and prudence with which the Board has run the Club to date. We shall only undertake actions which are in the interests of the Club and that by definition means our supporters.

Thank you for your support. We should be happy to discuss things as they progress.

 

[SpurSince57]

Correct, but not much of a bearing. The recession will have brought the building costs down slightly. The TfL requirements have added a tiny amount to the costs, I believe the final settlement was £2.7m, and that was a fully foreseeable cost. English Heritage requirements would be a maximum of a couple of million extra and a small redesign of the public space.

The main changes are two things you haven't mentioned, and also not costs, CABE's requirements to lower the number of dwellings and the reluctance to finance the project in the current financial climate.

As I've mentioned before, the top-end price for 2- and 3-bedroom flats in Tottenham is currently in the region of £200k. It might be possible to get more for units in a prestige development, but not much more. If the original plan crammed in 400 tiny flats that would have been attractive only to the buy-to-rent market, which was CABE's criticism, it was a bad plan; having the number halved might not lead to a loss in projected income.

 

[sloth]

Where else is going to be cheaper than Tottenham?

There aren't going to be an other stadiums like the OS built with public money in the foreseeable future, so where exactly is this cheap piece of land that we can build a cheap stadium on?

The reality is without public money it's the NDP or nothing, there just aren't cheaper options anywhere else in London. But as you said it's only a stadium and it doesn't matter where we play why don't we move up North?

Arsenal make £100m+ on match-day income, in the region of £70m a year more than us. I don't know the breakdown of corporate to ordinary fan (does anyone else), but I imagine a significant slice of that £100m is due to their corporate customers.

In the case of the OS, part of what made it viable was the corporate customers the development could attract over and above what we could hope for in Tottenham. There was also all the non-football related events we proposed to hold at the stadium.

The problem with Tottenham, is that, it's well, Tottenham. It's hard to get to and once you're there it's not very nice. I reckon that fact alone could account for £10s of millions difference annually in corporate and other revenue raising activities.

Tottenham also offers a slightly reduced capacity compared to the optimum.

All of that said, I can't see there's any acceptable alternatives. I could go with the OS, because it was in the same basic geographical area of London as was Tottenham, it was also a massive opportunity to become a super-club. There are no other places in North London and we mustn't move to somewhere like Docklands for instance. So I agree it was the OS or bust.

Some clarification perhaps on the purpose of the pre-action letter to various parties involved in the OS preferred bidder award.

This is the reply to a letter written to the club by a group calling themselves 'Supporting Our Future' which questioned the wisdom of challenging the OPLC.

It seems from this - to me at least - that the challenge is not to overturn the decision, but to recoup costs incurred in a process, the result of which appears to have been a foregone conclusion - whilst simultaneously applying a bit of an arm-twist/guilt trip to Boris.


Fri 01/04/2011 11:13AM

Thank you for your recent email to Daniel which he has read and asked me to reply to on behalf of the Club.

You raise a number of points which I shall answer as fully as possible.
In respect of our pre-action procedural letter to the OPLC and Newham Council - we have written requesting information about a process in which the Club engaged and incurred costs. We have previously requested information from the OPLC and have had that request refused. We find this remarkable given it was a public procurement and bearing in mind that we have never received any written notification whatsoever in respect of the decision taken by the Committee.

We shall await any response before deciding whether or not to take further action.

In continuing to seek an optimum stadium solution (please don't think for a moment that we have taken our foot off the pedal on this) we are, as set out in our Interim Financial Statement, involved in constructive discussions with Haringey Council and the Mayor regarding the feasibility of the NDP and we are actively considering all possible options.

We shall continue to press the Mayor and Ministers for the support we believe is both warranted and necessary for any new stadium scheme we might undertake.

The OPLC has awarded a competitor London Club a 60 000 seater stadium facilitated by substantial public subsidy, public sector investment and grant monies. It will further achieve this without incurring any planning or S106 costs.

In respect of surveying opinions - we have always said that when we have an option on which to consult we shall do so, as we did for the NDP, but we do not feel there is any constructive value in conducting a survey with options that could be wholly undeliverable, simply not feasible ie simply not real options.

We consulted extensively when we proposed the NDP and we are aware it is a fan favourite. Had we been in a position of preferred bidder status for Stratford we absolutely would have consulted on that scheme.

Going forward, we have always said that we would never undertake a capex project which would burden the Club with an unmanageable level of debt that would mean we were unable to invest in the playing side or that could undermine the long-term financial stability of the Club.

We would hope that supporters will acknowledge the pragmatism and prudence with which the Board has run the Club to date. We shall only undertake actions which are in the interests of the Club and that by definition means our supporters.

Thank you for your support. We should be happy to discuss things as they progress.

Very interesting, thanks for that mate.

 

[PT]

If we make Champions League again next season, we catagorically have to move forward on the stadium front, to achieve a foothold on this platform the club has strived toward.

Any step backward at this stage of Premiership evolvment and UEFA legislation will see our Club continue to languish on the second tier.

For example, if we do make CL next season, I wouldn't be averse to seeing our home games played at Wembley. The corporate income would be increased for sure and anyone who wanted to watch our progression lve absolutely could.

 

[sloth]

If we make Champions League again next season, we catagorically have to move forward on the stadium front, to achieve a foothold on this platform the club has strived toward.

Any step backward at this stage of Premiership evolvment and UEFA legislation will see our Club continue to languish on the second tier.

For example, if we do make CL next season, I wouldn't be averse to seeing our home games played at Wembley. The corporate income would be increased for sure and anyone who wanted to watch our progression lve absolutely could.

I think Wembley's a pretty ropey stadium, I've been there a few times now and even close to capacity the atmosphere is often crap.

The other thing is that the FA are broke, its debatable whether the slice of the gate receipts they'd demand would mean the difference in attendance would actually increase revenue.

I'm afraid that our options really appear to be limited, the only way I can see us doing anything is with some kind of help from the authorities and after two or three years of successive CL qualification. Even then we as fans will have to accept us cashing in on the likes of Bale and Modric and hope we can replace them with talent we've unearthed.

 

[PT]

I think Wembley's a pretty ropey stadium, I've been there a few times now and even close to capacity the atmosphere is often crap.

The atmosphere for a National match is always shrill and full of occasional support as families tend to go and there is no concerted effort to get the support going.

Put 60,000 Spurs fans in there in our colours and taking up at least two full stands and it would be a different story.

The revenue generated, while satisfying the FA coffers, would still swell the THFC accounts surely.

 

[bigturnip]

Some clarification perhaps on the purpose of the pre-action letter to various parties involved in the OS preferred bidder award.

This is the reply to a letter written to the club by a group calling themselves 'Supporting Our Future' which questioned the wisdom of challenging the OPLC.

It seems from this - to me at least - that the challenge is not to overturn the decision, but to recoup costs incurred in a process, the result of which appears to have been a foregone conclusion - whilst simultaneously applying a bit of an arm-twist/guilt trip to Boris.


Fri 01/04/2011 11:13AM

Thank you for your recent email to Daniel which he has read and asked me to reply to on behalf of the Club.

You raise a number of points which I shall answer as fully as possible.
In respect of our pre-action procedural letter to the OPLC and Newham Council - we have written requesting information about a process in which the Club engaged and incurred costs. We have previously requested information from the OPLC and have had that request refused. We find this remarkable given it was a public procurement and bearing in mind that we have never received any written notification whatsoever in respect of the decision taken by the Committee.

We shall await any response before deciding whether or not to take further action.

In continuing to seek an optimum stadium solution (please don't think for a moment that we have taken our foot off the pedal on this) we are, as set out in our Interim Financial Statement, involved in constructive discussions with Haringey Council and the Mayor regarding the feasibility of the NDP and we are actively considering all possible options.

We shall continue to press the Mayor and Ministers for the support we believe is both warranted and necessary for any new stadium scheme we might undertake.

The OPLC has awarded a competitor London Club a 60 000 seater stadium facilitated by substantial public subsidy, public sector investment and grant monies. It will further achieve this without incurring any planning or S106 costs.

In respect of surveying opinions - we have always said that when we have an option on which to consult we shall do so, as we did for the NDP, but we do not feel there is any constructive value in conducting a survey with options that could be wholly undeliverable, simply not feasible ie simply not real options.

We consulted extensively when we proposed the NDP and we are aware it is a fan favourite. Had we been in a position of preferred bidder status for Stratford we absolutely would have consulted on that scheme.

Going forward, we have always said that we would never undertake a capex project which would burden the Club with an unmanageable level of debt that would mean we were unable to invest in the playing side or that could undermine the long-term financial stability of the Club.

We would hope that supporters will acknowledge the pragmatism and prudence with which the Board has run the Club to date. We shall only undertake actions which are in the interests of the Club and that by definition means our supporters.

Thank you for your support. We should be happy to discuss things as they progress.

What I get from this is that the club are upset that West Ham are being given a stadium financed with public money, yet they themselves bid for the very same stadium, slightly hypocritical methinks.

They are also seeking information on the decision about the OS, again slightly hypocritical when they have kept the fans in the dark about their proposals and the non-viability of the NDP.

The club are also saying that it's not worth consulting with fans until they've spent millions of pounds on a project that the fans might not want.

This is why the club needs to just move on from this, they are coming across as bad losers, especially criticising aspects of the process that they had no qualms with when they were in the running and would have been more than happy with had they won the bid. Besides the public don't want Tottenham in the OS, they don't want an expensive judicial review and years of legal wrangling in the courts and they certainly don't want to see a brand new stadium completely torn down.

If the club proceed with this they simply can't win.

 

[bigturnip]

The atmosphere for a National match is always shrill and full of occasional support as families tend to go and there is no concerted effort to get the support going.

Put 60,000 Spurs fans in there in our colours and taking up at least two full stands and it would be a different story.

The revenue generated, while satisfying the FA coffers, would still swell the THFC accounts surely.

It's a non-starter because the stadium is only licensed for a certain number of events each year, you couldn't play a whole season in there.

Besides it's a crap stadium, no atmosphere, miles from the pitch and the turf can't even cope with a handful of England games every year.

 

[RichieS]

What I get from this is that the club are upset that West Ham are being given a stadium financed with public money, yet they themselves bid for the very same stadium, slightly hypocritical methinks.

They are also seeking information on the decision about the OS, again slightly hypocritical when they have kept the fans in the dark about their proposals and the non-viability of the NDP.

The club are also saying that it's not worth consulting with fans until they've spent millions of pounds on a project that the fans might not want.

This is why the club needs to just move on from this, they are coming across as bad losers, especially criticising aspects of the process that they had no qualms with when they were in the running and would have been more than happy with had they won the bid. Besides the public don't want Tottenham in the OS, they don't want an expensive judicial review and years of legal wrangling in the courts and they certainly don't want to see a brand new stadium completely torn down.

If the club proceed with this they simply can't win.

Seems to me they've got the hump with the fact that West Ham have been given a new stadium AND a further (i.e. on top of what's already been spent constructing the stadium) £75m of public money. Add the fact that Arsenal got fairly substantial public financial assistance for Arseburton Grove and I think the club have every right to make a song and dance when we're being offered absolute minimal support.

 

[Achap]

What I get from this is that the club are upset that West Ham are being given a stadium financed with public money, yet they themselves bid for the very same stadium, slightly hypocritical methinks.

They are also seeking information on the decision about the OS, again slightly hypocritical when they have kept the fans in the dark about their proposals and the non-viability of the NDP.

The club are also saying that it's not worth consulting with fans until they've spent millions of pounds on a project that the fans might not want.

This is why the club needs to just move on from this, they are coming across as bad losers, especially criticising aspects of the process that they had no qualms with when they were in the running and would have been more than happy with had they won the bid. Besides the public don't want Tottenham in the OS, they don't want an expensive judicial review and years of legal wrangling in the courts and they certainly don't want to see a brand new stadium completely torn down.

If the club proceed with this they simply can't win.

Strange how two Spurs fans can have such different views on the contents of this letter. In my version, the Board feels they were conned into the exercise, the Club has been disrespected, and they want an explanation as to why. Additionally, they would like similar assistance to that extended to other London clubs, in order to build a larger stadium for the betterment of our Club.

Sensible, business-like objectives in my view - but perhaps we'll have to agree to differ.

 

[Spur-of-the-moment]

SP

You're a f**cking summit.

There.

 

[bigturnip]

Seems to me they've got the hump with the fact that West Ham have been given a new stadium AND a further (i.e. on top of what's already been spent constructing the stadium) £75m of public money. Add the fact that Arsenal got fairly substantial public financial assistance for Arseburton Grove and I think the club have every right to make a song and dance when we're being offered absolute minimal support.

We were pushing for £35m of that £75m of public money, so again how can the club question it when they were chasing the exact same money? It seems like the club are only calling it into question now that they've lost and that, regardless of the rights and wrongs, just looks like sour grapes.

As far as I know Arsenal had no public money given to them for their stadium and they had far higher s106 costs than what Haringey are asking from us.

 

[bigturnip]

Strange how two Spurs fans can have such different views on the contents of this letter. In my version, the Board feels they were conned into the exercise, the Club has been disrespected, and they want an explanation as to why. Additionally, they would like similar assistance to that extended to other London clubs, in order to build a larger stadium for the betterment of our Club.

Sensible, business-like objectives in my view - but perhaps we'll have to agree to differ.

Which other London clubs? As far as I know no other London clubs have received any public finance for stadium development, West Ham will be the first.

So what the club is saying is that Boris gave them a nod and a wink and now the decision has gone against them they are protesting against the unfairness of the procedure, oh the irony.