New Stadium Details And Discussions

[Locotoro]

Surely any attempt to apply the ECHR would be laughed

Protocol 1 Article 1 states

Archway is a limited company and as such all assets are under the possession of the company and not an individual, regardless of their stake in the company.
Even if the land was the possession of an individual, the argument for public interest is overwhelming as the new stadium is the anchor of the entire redevelopment project.

The protocol was designed with the assets seizures that the Nazi's committed against people like my grandfather and 6 million other Jews throughout Europe in mind, not for a company to stall the regeneration of one of the most deprived boroughs in London.

Fyi, a legal person is inclusive of a legal entity- in other words a company

 

[arthurgrimsdell]

Fyi, a legal person is inclusive of a legal entity- in other words a company

How can a company have human rights? It is certainly a legal entity, but it isn't human.

 

[Achap]

According to legal advice provided to Ealing Council in April, 2013:

'Although the ECHR guarantees the right to peaceful enjoyment of property, it is clear from Article
1 of the First Protocol that compulsory acquisition of land does not involve an infringement of the
ECHR so long as it is done in the public interest and subject to the law laid down by statute. Similar
considerations apply to Article 8. States are given a "margin of appreciation" in deciding for
themselves what constitutes sufficient public interest to justify a compulsory acquisition.'

It is likely that similar advice would be provided to Haringey BC - and therefore the ECHR does not
appear to pose a problem.

 

[jambreck]

According to legal advice provided to Ealing Council in April, 2013:

'Although the ECHR guarantees the right to peaceful enjoyment of property, it is clear from Article
1 of the First Protocol that compulsory acquisition of land does not involve an infringement of the
ECHR so long as it is done in the public interest and subject to the law laid down by statute. Similar
considerations apply to Article 8. States are given a "margin of appreciation" in deciding for
themselves what constitutes sufficient public interest to justify a compulsory acquisition.'

It is likely that similar advice would be provided to Haringey BC - and therefore the ECHR does not
appear to pose a problem.

Thanks for that.

Hopefully, Archway's solicitor will advise his client likewise - if Eric Pickles decides in favour of Haringey / Spurs - that it wouldn't be worth pursuing the case further still, to the ECHR.

 

[davidmatzdorf]

And that key phrase 'in the public interest' is why it is rare for a CPO to be denied when a landowner is obstructing a regeneration project. As I wrote above, most CPOs that are refused in such circumstances fail because of incorrect procedure by the local authority, not on their merits.

If that were not so, then the entire CPO concept would be rendered void and any single aggrieved or simply stubborn landowner could derail any major regeneration scheme. And there is always, always, always an aggrieved and stubborn landowner.

 

[Locotoro]

How can a company have human rights? It is certainly a legal entity, but it isn't human.

A company doesn't have human rights but still has rights.

The convention refers not only to natural person (human) but also legal persons (any entity or group of people capable of holding legal rights ie company)

 

[Locotoro]

According to legal advice provided to Ealing Council in April, 2013:

'Although the ECHR guarantees the right to peaceful enjoyment of property, it is clear from Article
1 of the First Protocol that compulsory acquisition of land does not involve an infringement of the
ECHR so long as it is done in the public interest and subject to the law laid down by statute. Similar
considerations apply to Article 8. States are given a "margin of appreciation" in deciding for
themselves what constitutes sufficient public interest to justify a compulsory acquisition.'

It is likely that similar advice would be provided to Haringey BC - and therefore the ECHR does not
appear to pose a problem.

You are absolutely right in your interpretation of the article however this will probably not stop archway from pursuing the very public route of a European appeal.

They will likely appeal and eventually have the case rejected at the preliminary hearing but will use the publicity to their advantage

 

[Lilbaz]

Can't we just give them dawson?

 

[jambreck]

You are absolutely right in your interpretation of the article however this will probably not stop archway from pursuing the very public route of a European appeal.

They will likely appeal and eventually have the case rejected at the preliminary hearing but will use the publicity to their advantage

I don't see how publicity will help them - especially given that it will inevitably be very limited publicity that few will notice or care about.

Pursuing their case, however, when they have no chance of winning, will cost them yet more in wasted legal fees. I'd have thought that a responsible solicitor would advise them that they've reached the end of the road.

 

[Lilbaz]

I don't see how publicity will help them - especially given that it will inevitably be very limited publicity that few will notice or care about.

Pursuing their case, however, when they have no chance of winning, will cost them yet more in wasted legal fees. I'd have thought that a responsible solicitor would advise them that they've reached the end of the road.

Unfortunately there are very few responsible solicitors.

 

[jambreck]

Unfortunately there are very few responsible solicitors.

I'm not entirely sure that that's true.

Besides, I would guess that if a solicitor fails to give his or her client an accurate assessment of the likelihood of success, then he / she opens himself up to being sued by that client.

So even if a solicitor isn't responsible, they most certainly will be protective of their own interest!

 

[Lilbaz]

I'm not entirely sure that that's true.

Besides, I would guess that if a solicitor fails to give his or her client an accurate assessment of the likelihood of success, then he / she opens himself up to being sued by that client.

So even if a solicitor isn't responsible, they most certainly will be protective of their own interest!

Probably for another debate. But the whole legal system these days seems to be geared towards solicitors, barristers and judges making huge amounts of money.

 

[Spursidol]

I don't see how publicity will help them - especially given that it will inevitably be very limited publicity that few will notice or care about.

Pursuing their case, however, when they have no chance of winning, will cost them yet more in wasted legal fees. I'd have thought that a responsible solicitor would advise them that they've reached the end of the road.

But the client (Archway) can choose to ignore the advice of the solicitor - if they have plenty of money behind them - in the hope of dragging outb the matter if they think time wasting will fovce Spurs tp raise their offer.

Hopefully Archway will see reason once Pickles signs off - but all we can do is wait and see

 

[jambreck]

Probably for another debate. But the whole legal system these days seems to be geared towards solicitors, barristers and judges making huge amounts of money.

I can only say that, in my experience, the solicitors I've dealt with have been reluctant to advise seeking counsel (and taking the matter in question to court) unless there is either no option but to do so or unless the outcome is almost certain to be positive - in which latter case, the other party has generally not wished the matter to go to court (on the advice of their own solicitor) and it has been resolved without the need for vast added legal costs.

 

[jambreck]

But the client (Archway) can choose to ignore the advice of the solicitor - if they have plenty of money behind them - in the hope of dragging outb the matter if they think time wasting will fovce Spurs tp raise their offer.

Hopefully Archway will see reason once Pickles signs off - but all we can do is wait and see

Of course, Archway can choose to do whatever they wish. They can choose to ignore their solicitor's advice.

But they will be aware that pursuing the matter further will cost them a whole heap more in legal costs and they could end up receiving even less than they have already been offered.

Certainly, knowing what we know of Daniel Levy, I would say that Archway have little chance of beating him in a "blink first" contest.

 

[sherbornespurs]

Looking at the most recent accounts for Archway Steel it looks like the total value of the company isn't worth a £1m, so I don't see how they can hold out for much more plus 100% of their relocation costs (unless the value of the land/premises are not included in the accounts, of course).

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/01501004/ARCHWAY-SHEET-METAL-WORKS-LIMITED/company-summary

 

[davidmatzdorf]

Looking at the most recent accounts for Archway Steel it looks like the total value of the company isn't worth a £1m, so I don't see how they can hold out for much more plus 100% of their relocation costs (unless the value of the land/premises are not included in the accounts, of course).

The CPO valuation will be based on the land value, not the value of the company, but the land value is not just one figure. There is the land value based on its existing use, i.e., as an industrial site with a sheet metal fabrication factory on it, which could be the site with vacant possession or subject to any existing leases (two different figures), and then there is the value of the land as a development site, which - given that it is presently obstructing a major regeneration scheme that has planning consent - is a calculation with all kinds of scope for dispute.

The 'value' of the company shown in its accounts will be its net value, which could arguably be fixed assets including land of £5m, less debts of £4m.

 

[ginola99]

There has been rumours that its just greed and nothing else. I'm pretty sure that something was posted here, or else where, which said the club has offered Archways about £2m but they're holding out for £4m

 

[Lilbaz]

There has been rumours that its just greed and nothing else. I'm pretty sure that something was posted here, or else where, which said the club has offered Archways about £2m but they're holding out for £4m

Why not? They've been there for years. The move will be a major pain for them and may even cost them some customers. They want to get the best possible deal out of this, but so do we. Compromise of £3m and lets get this baby started.

 

[ginola99]

I think the deal covers

- Build of new premises nearby
- Cost of moving
- Any revenues/profits lost during move
- Some compensation on top of the above

To be fair I do agree and I don't think that this CPO is an absolute dead cert. It does seem to be in our favour but I doubt that stubbornness is the backbone of their case against the CPO. I just hope that in this resolved soon and does go in Tottenham's favour as it does seem to be the reason for the hold up.