New Stadium Details And Discussions

[davidmatzdorf]

I have just been told that we THFC will own the land the new stadium is built on, not the new stadium itself. Can someone enlighten me if this is different to the arrangement we have with the current stadium.

That sounds like a Freehold/Leasehold issue that has been mis-reported.

"Owning the land" in English law basically means owning the Freehold. It's yours in perpetuity. If you own the Freehold, you own the land and everything that's on it, including the stadium in this case, permanently.

However, you can sell a lease on the land or any part of it or any building on it for any time period, including what is called a "virtual Freehold" lease of 999 years. When the Leasehold period expires, the land or buildings that were leased revert to the Freeholder.

It sounds here as if Tottenham Hotspur Football Club (or a company owned by it) will be the Freeholder of the stadium land. It certainly acquired the Freehold of the entire NDP site (Archway Sheet Metal being the last piece) before proceeding with Phase 2 (the stadium).

It would not surprise me if THFC retains the Freehold interest in the entire NDP long-term, but that would be a matter for negotiation with Sainsbury's, the residential development partner, the hotel operator, etc.

If the club wants to sell a Leasehold interest in the stadium building itself, it would most likely be leased to a company set up by the club especially to operate the stadium. Or they might want to sell a long lease on the stadium building to a company outside the THFC orbit, as a property management or tax avoidance wheeze, with the stadium being leased right back to the club. Property developers do all kinds of ownership manipulations of this kind. There are too many of them to list and I have no idea what specific reasons the club might have for doing anything like this.

And I don't know what the ownership arrangements are on the current stadium. But I hope that helps a bit.

 

[Ionman34]

Love the new design but I'm hoping we can coin a new term other than "Kop" to describe the home end.

Something Tottenham (I'm sure someone had it before liverpool) not a word associated with them lot.

Wall of noise?

 

[Ionman34]

Levy being Levy, you can bet that there'll be major financial penalties inserted into the build contract that we eventually tender out.

I agree that one season away from WHL does seem optimistic, at best I think we can hope for by 2018/19 is a completed stadium in the middle of an on-going construction site. Not ideal.

That's standard KK, Levy won't be doing anything unusual in that respect. The liquidated damages for any delay I would expect to be extremely high, as for every day/week/match we are not there, the revenue loss will be substantial. I think this is one of the reasons Wembley nearly sent Multiplex under, the delays they encountered cost them millions in LD's, so much so that they had to sell of nigh on all of their international assets, you don't even see them around Oz now.

Any Contractor will be hugely mindful of the LD's, they can destroy a company.

What would be nice is if the club put in a bonus/penalty clause, much like the DoT used to do with motorway lane rentals, for every day of program saved, so many thousands in bonus, whilst for every day lost the same amount applied as a penalty. In my experience, it is an excellent way of getting early delivery.

I doubt it would happen though as reward clauses are quite rare nowadays, to my knowledge. I'm happy to be corrected on that though as I haven't worked in the UK for over 10 years.

 

[Ionman34]

I think the capacity issue is limited as much by the size of our 'plot' as much as anything. Why include the ability to expand if there is no room to do so?

The comments on East and west looking different I disagree with too. The stands will be designed to be efficient in terms of capacity, by adjusting the only possible result of that is reduced capacity.

I don't know a great deal about the type of roof we are using, but I suspect they are lighter than other more traditional solutions and cheaper.

We need more cockerels! I contacted the club about it because I believe in it, we need a cockerel on the top of the east stand,

On corporate, there's no way Danny would allow there to be a sub-optimal number of boxes and seats. If there is less it's because he's already pushing the boundaries on what we can fill, otherwise it may be that they are only talking about the seats and not the boxes.

The away fans would be better near the new 'Kop', however, when you look at the design of the bowl there is two issues. 1. Is that there is no room in the corners and no room sacrifices space along the sidelines to away fans, the only available corners are at the other end. 2. Is that they would be above the Spurs fans in the Kop. I'm s hard to chant at a group above you and they would spend the game throwing stuff at us!

I think it's a shame standing won't have a bigger impact, but that's the nature of safe standing, it's not like a terrace. It's a shame we can't expand much in future, but that's what we get for staying where we are.

I think there will probably be some minor revisions and improvements, but this is it and I still think it's excellent.

WRT the Cockerel, yes it would be nice to have it back on the roof, but I reckon it would also look good mounted as a statue on the main approach to the ground. A nice big stone plinth with the names of past players carved into it, much like we have with the monuments commemorating those who died in the wars, and the Cockerel, polished to a Golden gleam, proudly mounted on top. I think it would be a fantastic commemoration to our history and all of those who contributed to it.

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea. I would love to walk up to the ground and stop at something like that, reading all the names and remembering what quality we have had over the years. That, for me, would be a huge recognition of the clubs history. You could highlight the winning teams, show the team that made history being the ONLY non league team to win the FA Cup. The double winning team, the Cup Winners Cup winning team ad infinitum.

Young fans will see them, read up on them and learn more of our history, keeping it alive through each generation.

I really believe now that using the Cockerel in that way would be a better way of enhancing our tradition than mounting it on the roof.

I might just get on to Levy with that suggestion myself.

 

[davidmatzdorf]

@KingKay and @Ionman34: Strictly speaking, "penalties" in building contracts are unlawful. That's why they are routinely described, as @Ionman34 did, as "liquidated damages". They have to be calculated and written in the contract with reference to actual additional costs that will be incurred by the developer, as a result of delays by the contractor. They can't just be punitive incentives.

But the contracts exclude a list of delays that are outside the contractor's control, which usually form the basis of a fractious negotiation on contracts that overrun. In the end, a large building contractor will have enough legal clout to blow a substantial cloud of smoke over the whole negotiation, with the result that liquidated damages tend to be agreed based on a commercial settlement that often bears little relation to what was written into the contract. Cynical? Yes. But that's what happens. And contractors get away with murder, sometimes having (say) four weeks of damages levied for a contract that finished a year late.

I think the absence of reward clauses is the flip-side of penalties being unlawful. A developer wouldn't want to include a reward, unless there is also a penalty. So these clauses do not often appear in contracts.

 

[Lilbaz]

WRT the Cockerel, yes it would be nice to have it back on the roof, but I reckon it would also look good mounted as a statue on the main approach to the ground. A nice big stone plinth with the names of past players carved into it, much like we have with the monuments commemorating those who died in the wars, and the Cockerel, polished to a Golden gleam, proudly mounted on top. I think it would be a fantastic commemoration to our history and all of those who contributed to it.

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea. I would love to walk up to the ground and stop at something like that, reading all the names and remembering what quality we have had over the years. That, for me, would be a huge recognition of the clubs history. You could highlight the winning teams, show the team that made history being the ONLY non league team to win the FA Cup. The double winning team, the Cup Winners Cup winning team ad infinitum.

Young fans will see them, read up on them and learn more of our history, keeping it alive through each generation.

I really believe now that using the Cockerel in that way would be a better way of enhancing our tradition than mounting it on the roof.

I might just get on to Levy with that suggestion myself.

You do know that we are building a museum?

 

[Ionman34]

You do know that we are building a museum?

I do. Ideal place for the youngsters to visit when they want to find out more about those teams/players they see on the plinth don't you think?

You'll not dissuade me on this Baz, I'm running with this idea if it kills me!

 

[longtimespur]

I do. Ideal place for the youngsters to visit when they want to find out more about those teams/players they see on the plinth don't you think?

You'll not dissuade me on this Baz, I'm running with this idea if it kills me!

I like your idea and would support your actions.

Just hope it's not too heavy an idea or your death will come quicker.

 

[Lilbaz]

I do. Ideal place for the youngsters to visit when they want to find out more about those teams/players they see on the plinth don't you think?

You'll not dissuade me on this Baz, I'm running with this idea if it kills me!

I hope we do have a few statues on tottenham way (station to ground) and in tottenham square.

 

[Ionman34]

@KingKay and @Ionman34: Strictly speaking, "penalties" in building contracts are unlawful. That's why they are routinely described, as @Ionman34 did, as "liquidated damages". They have to be calculated and written in the contract with reference to actual additional costs that will be incurred by the developer, as a result of delays by the contractor. They can't just be punitive incentives.

But the contracts exclude a list of delays that are outside the contractor's control, which usually form the basis of a fractious negotiation on contracts that overrun. In the end, a large building contractor will have enough legal clout to blow a substantial cloud of smoke over the whole negotiation, with the result that liquidated damages tend to be agreed based on a commercial settlement that often bears little relation to what was written into the contract. Cynical? Yes. But that's what happens. And contractors get away with murder, sometimes having (say) four weeks of damages levied for a contract that finished a year late.

I think the absence of reward clauses is the flip-side of penalties being unlawful. A developer wouldn't want to include a reward, unless there is also a penalty. So these clauses do not often appear in contracts.

Cheers Dave. Like I said, it's been a while since I've been in the UK and the penalty/bonus job I did was the M40 back in 1990.

You're right o the LD's too, my last job was delayed but the Client waived the LD's as trying to prove them legally would be a long and costly affair. Having said that, Multiplex really suffered with them, as I said earlier.

I really wouldn't put it past Levy to enforce them if a Contractor caused delay were to delay the opening.

 

[hillbilly]

Wall of noise?

I imagine it will just be known as the 'Park Lane'.

 

[Ionman34]

I hope we do have a few statues on tottenham way (station to ground) and in tottenham square.

Wasn't there some info saying that there were plans for a Bill Nic statue in his famous gates pose?

I would hope they'also include one for Arthur Rowe too. Burkinshaw would also merit one, in my eyes, but I'm not sure whether there's any residual bad feeling following the "There used to be a Football club over there" comment.

The Cockerel is the Club though, it embodies THFC and should be prominent IMO.

 

[Lilbaz]

Wasn't there some info saying that there were plans for a Bill Nic statue in his famous gates pose?

I would hope they'also include one for Arthur Rowe too. Burkinshaw would also merit one, in my eyes, but I'm not sure whether there's any residual bad feeling following the "There used to be a Football club over there" comment.

The Cockerel is the Club though, it embodies THFC and should be prominent IMO.

The bad blood would have been between him and the board at the time though. I doubt he'd have much ill feeling towards the current board.
We could have a statue of pleaty curb crawling.

 

[Ionman34]

The bad blood would have been between him and the board at the time though. I doubt he'd have much ill feeling towards the current board.
We could have a statue of pleaty curb crawling.

Or Sugar carrying a stereo?

 

[Spursidol]

I have just been told that we THFC will own the land the new stadium is built on, not the new stadium itself. Can someone enlighten me if this is different to the arrangement with have with the current stadium.

That sounds like a Freehold/Leasehold issue that has been mis-reported.

"Owning the land" in English law basically means owning the Freehold. It's yours in perpetuity. If you own the Freehold, you own the land and everything that's on it, including the stadium in this case, permanently.

However, you can sell a lease on the land or any part of it or any building on it for any time period, including what is called a "virtual Freehold" lease of 999 years. When the Leasehold period expires, the land or buildings that were leased revert to the Freeholder.

It sounds here as if Tottenham Hotspur Football Club (or a company owned by it) will be the Freeholder of the stadium land. It certainly acquired the Freehold of the entire NDP site (Archway Sheet Metal being the last piece) before proceeding with Phase 2 (the stadium).

It would not surprise me if THFC retains the Freehold interest in the entire NDP long-term, but that would be a matter for negotiation with Sainsbury's, the residential development partner, the hotel operator, etc.

If the club wants to sell a Leasehold interest in the stadium building itself, it would most likely be leased to a company set up by the club especially to operate the stadium. Or they might want to sell a long lease on the stadium building to a company outside the THFC orbit, as a property management or tax avoidance wheeze, with the stadium being leased right back to the club. Property developers do all kinds of ownership manipulations of this kind. There are too many of them to list and I have no idea what specific reasons the club might have for doing anything like this.

And I don't know what the ownership arrangements are on the current stadium. But I hope that helps a bit.

All good stuff David, The other thought I had is that its simply that the Stadium will have a charge on the property from the bank providing loan finance.

Sometimes I've seen it done (in other industries) that the bank has actual ownership of the stadium until the loan is paid back (over a number of years at least in part from the naming rights deal which is paid to Spurs over a number of years) when the ownership is passed back to Spurs - sometimes this takes the form of a 'SPV' (special purpose vehicle) - a new company set up specifically to own the stadium with the shares in it held by the bank until repayment when the shares are transferred back to Spurs for a nominal consideration (maybe £1)

 

[Lilbaz]

All good stuff David, The other thought I had is that its simply that the Stadium will have a charge on the property from the bank providing loan finance.

Sometimes I've seen it done (in other industries) that the bank has actual ownership of the stadium until the loan is paid back (over a number of years at least in part from the naming rights deal which is paid to Spurs over a number of years) when the ownership is passed back to Spurs - sometimes this takes the form of a 'SPV' (special purpose vehicle) - a new company set up specifically to own the stadium with the shares in it held by the bank until repayment when the shares are transferred back to Spurs for a nominal consideration (maybe £1)

Would they do that for the stadium though? It's only purpose is for spurs to play football games in. It's not like the bank would be able to sell it to someone else if we fail to pay back the loan.

 

[Spursidol]

Would they do that for the stadium though? It's only purpose is for spurs to play football games in. It's not like the bank would be able to sell it to someone else if we fail to pay back the loan.

Don't tell the bank that their 'security' for the loan isn't worth much !

The theory (I think) is that the bank could in theory take possession of the stadium and lease it to Spurs on some form of rental basis if Spurs defaulted on the loan repayments. But that would be a last resort - the bank doesn't really want to own and operate assets !

 

[Flashspur]

i like this fans response to the groundshare with the Arse

http://www.101greatgoals.com/blog/s...nham-tattoo-outside-arsenals-stadium-picture/

 

[Lilbaz]

i like this fans response to the groundshare with the Arse

http://www.101greatgoals.com/blog/s...nham-tattoo-outside-arsenals-stadium-picture/

It's quite an old picture. Not sure why HITC is bringing it up now.

 

[Flashspur]

Because recent press raised the potential groundshare issue with Arsenal again...I think we'll end up at MK Dons. Its written in the stars.