New Stadium Details And Discussions

[StartingPrice]

I'm quite sure that the nuts and bolts of the bid was highly professional. But that's not my point.

The PR was awful. People do get these things wrong, and in this case it was spectacular.

We don't know exactly why Levy went for Stratford - but the main chance came up when AEG fell out with Wham. If Levy was given a nod and a wink by Boris, then it would be the act of the utmost political naivety to imagine that was based on anything other than shifting sands. One has to be able to read a political situation - and, yes, people often get this wrong as well, surprise, surprise.

That's why you hire professionals. In the case of both PR and politics, these professionals have to be very good indeed. I think Levy was badly advised. I hope that with the current legal business he is getting better advice.


Sotm

Says nothing other than you would still really, really read into it these things even though you don't know them. That is fair enough. It is plausible - though nothing I have even seen of the way Dan Levy operates has ever suggested to me that he would be so politically niave. But I never said this was implausible.
What I said was the way the bid was put in containing only 2 of the 5 essential criteria, knowing full well that Spam had covered (in some form, at least), two of the three missing from our bid, and, therefore, probably containing 4 or all 5 of the essential criteria, adds credence to an interpretation that we could be using the OS bid as a stick to beat the Council, etc., with. I don't really care if you believe that is was happened. What I care about is that I suggested this (said it was plausible, not definite)and I was lampooned as being a niave conspiracy theorist by folk who then transposed a theory, equally plausible/implausibe, that paints Levy as some kinda Deliverance "squeal like a pig", hick.
Neither is implausible, we don't know the truth.
Don't need lectures on politics, thanks.

 

[Spur-of-the-moment]

I pretty much agree with your analysis of where it went wrong, but reject your hypothesis that when something's difficult and subsequently not achieved, it follows that the failure must be attributable to wrong or missing actions. Instead I think it is simply that the thing attempted was difficult.

I try to avoid the benefit-of-hindsight type of argument. The way Levy spoke at the time, indicated to me that neither he nor his advisers fully appreciated how obviously political the whole process was. Maybe they were too close to the technical side. Maybe they couldn't see the wood for the trees. I think that alone would account for the poor nature of the PR campaign. But taken on its own 'merits', or rather demerits, the PR was very sloppy. I remember pointing it out at the time.

I do agree with you that it was difficult. Very difficult indeed.

Specifically when it came to the bid, our proposal involved leaving one borough and a financial mess behind, moving into another borough and the territory of another club (who's fans will also represent a large section of the voters in that borough), pissing off the golden balls athletics lobby (whom the BBC adore, many of whom work for the BBC) and taking down the Olympic Stadium (which would just seem wrong to the majority of the uninformed, but never shy to show its indignation, British public).

Quite frankly the PR battle was un-winnable in those circumstances and by far the best policy would have been to keep your head down and not engage.

This might be where benefit of hindsight would come in. But, even at the beginning of the process, it looked very uphill. This is where some good political and PR advice might have come in useful.

The difficult thing we were trying, was to win the bid in the face of all the issues you highlight. As far as I can see our sole chance relied on the OPLC finding that West Ham's bid was non-sustainable. If they concluded that the financials didn't stack up then it would mean that West Ham's bid met none of the five criteria, as no matter what they promised they wouldn't be able to deliver.

OK, so it might have been a 'hoof and hope'. But that still doesn't excuse the poor PR. No matter what our chances, we had to draw a good image of our bid and the club. Indeed with a good PR campaign and a greater degree of public sympathy behind us, we might be in a better position now.

I'm a quantitative sports analyst.

Well that's pretty Kool and the Gang, if you don't mind me saying so. I'd like to ask you a hundred and one questions, of course...


Sotm

 

[Spur-of-the-moment]

Says nothing other than you would still really, really read into it these things even though you don't know them. That is fair enough. It is plausible - though nothing I have even seen of the way Dan Levy operates has ever suggested to me that he would be so politically niave. But I never said this was implausible.

SP, I'm not trying to read things behind the surface. PR is what happens on the surface and if you fuck that up, it doesn't really matter what your intentions are, or what happens behind the scenes. I'm sure Levy's a good man - but he was badly advised. It was poor PR.

There was certainly a naivety when he called for a decision free of emotion - indeed he called on supporters to put emotion to one side at the very same time as the Official Site explicitly played on the passion of the support (wasn't it 'Passion for Spurs' or something?). A good advisor would have spotted that.

What I said was the way the bid was put in containing only 2 of the 5 essential criteria, knowing full well that Spam had covered (in some form, at least), two of the three missing from our bid, and, therefore, probably containing 4 or all 5 of the essential criteria, adds credence to an interpretation that we could be using the OS bid as a stick to beat the Council, etc., with. I don't really care if you believe that is was happened. What I care about is that I suggested this (said it was plausible, not definite)and I was lampooned as being a niave conspiracy theorist by folk who then transposed a theory, equally plausible/implausibe, that paints Levy as some kinda Deliverance "squeal like a pig", hick.
Neither is implausible, we don't know the truth.

I'll leave you to argue with those folks. I don't care. The only thing I would say is that my argument is not symmetrical to yours. Mine is a reading of the surface. Yours is a speculation about what happens beneath the surface.

The only thing I would add is that it is all rather unlikely but, hey, you're entitled to your speculation.

Don't need lectures on politics, thanks.

Don't worry, you won't get any from me.


Sotm

 

[StartingPrice]

SP, I'm not trying to read things behind the surface. PR is what happens on the surface and if you fuck that up, it doesn't really matter what your intentions are, or what happens behind the scenes. I'm sure Levy's a good man - but he was badly advised. It was poor PR.

I know. Indeed I would go so far as to say that PR is creating a favourable veneer of the surface to mediate to the 'consumers'. The problem I have with accepting the 'mediate' veneer you are suggesting is just this. You think we were hammered (if you'll pardon the pun:grin on the PR side of things; but there were folk on here pointing out that the Spammers were pummelling us on just these things almost from day one - so it to be so evident to absolute amateurs, from so early and for so long requires a degree of ineptness on the part of Levy's PR levies (do you see what I did, there:grin, that I find incredible. If you are right, then heads truly should roll.

There was certainly a naivety when he called for a decision free of emotion - indeed he called on supporters to put emotion to one side at the very same time as the Official Site explicitly played on the passion of the support (wasn't it 'Passion for Spurs' or something?). A good advisor would have spotted that.

That is a seperate matter. Presumably Dan just wanted to cook his goose and eat it. Hardly the first 'playa' to think his demographic is a bit simpler, and therefore more easily hoodwinkable, than there are. But I don't think that affected the decision makers in the slightest. Indeed, I would be surprised if any of the PR(inept or otherwise) really did, either.

I'll leave you to argue with those folks. I don't care. The only thing I would say is that my argument is not symmetrical to yours. Mine is a reading of the surface. Yours is a speculation about what happens beneath the surface.

No, you are right, but certain folk were transposing your explanation with mine, as some kind of proof that mine was wrong...which is why I found it necessary to quote it. Besides, it is possible that we are both right, but it is also possible than one of us is and the other isn't (or, indeed, that we both aren't).

The only thing I would add is that it is all rather unlikely but, hey, you're entitled to your speculation.

If there is one thing that studying the shenanigans of folk in positions of power down the ages it is that B'Stards are capable of ANYTHING:wink:

Don't worry, you won't get any from me.

Oh, go on...callme a Fascist Communist Pinko, or summit:grin:

Sotm

SP

 

[sloth]

OK, so it might have been a 'hoof and hope'. But that still doesn't excuse the poor PR. No matter what our chances, we had to draw a good image of our bid and the club. Indeed with a good PR campaign and a greater degree of public sympathy behind us, we might be in a better position now.

I think I agree with you on the second part. As we both agree it was an uphill task to win the PR battle and my personal view is that they went the behind-the-scenes lobbying route (I don't know this but surmise it by the number of people we hired with connections to the Olympics and the OPLC) rather than the public lobbying route. But as you say trying to make a complicated argument is not the same as trying to make an impossible one, our bid had many merits over and above the West Ham one and they didn't do as well as they could in getting it across.

I agree then, that our PR campaign was less than ideal, but I don't think it was as naive as you seem to.

On your hoof-and-hope comment, I don't think it was as blind a shot as that for the following reasons:

• They had done their own analysis which showed that an 80k stadium without an athletics track was unsustainable for a club of our size.

• They'd also done research which showed a football stadium with an athletics track was unsustainable for almost any football club and was not something we were prepared to risk.

• They'd concluded that modern football stadia only add up financially with a large corporate element to them.

For all these reasons they'd concluded that Spurs wouldn't have a cat in hells chance of making an 80k stadium with a running track and without corporate facilities work.

If we couldn't, then how the hell could a club like West Ham with less supporters, at the bottom of the table, with no cash, large debts and historically poor corporate management make it work?

If there proposals were non-sustainable for us how could they be for them?

They must have felt that if presented with the evidence there was a good chance that the OPLC would come to the same conclusions as they had. Of course in the end they didn't, but like I say it wasn't a total punt from the THFC board.

 

[$hoguN]

Just because we did not get embroiled in a media battle for the OS does not mean we ran a bad PR campaign and like I said before the way West Ham went about trying to pubically trash Lewis, Levy and our bid may be one of the reasons we cite in bringing forward a judicial review.

Also all this "I think Levy was poorly advised to bid for the OS" stuff, can we please knock it on the head as Levy's advice would have come from some of the top consultants in the World, who will have been privy to far more information than any of us.

 

[SpurSince57]

Since we signally failed to persuade the public of the merits of our bid, the PR campaign (such as it was), was, by definition, an ocean-going failure. Are you seriously suggesting that Brady's very successful rabble-rousing tipped the decision West Ham's way?

 

[andyw362]

Brady won it for them with her mud slinging and misinformation. PR graduates will one day be learning about West Ham and Newham Council v Spurs and AEG.

Levy should never have been our public spearhead. He just doesnt have the charisma or public speaking ability to win. Sugar should have been our public face.

 

[bigturnip]

He said 2 seasons time....2011/2012 = 1 - 2012/2013 = 2

Yep 2012/2013 is 2 seasons time, which starts before the paralympic games finish.

2 seasons time....ie the start of 2013/2014 season, so 1 year after the Olympics.

So 3 seasons time, but anyway I'd be amazed if they could pull down the old stadium and build a new one in 11 months, if it happened it would be 2015/16 before Stratford Hotspur could play there at the earliest.

 

[bigturnip]

This is not about some pathetic little pride thing and it's not about accepting defeat for the sake of the club, it is about a partnership with an international events company that was going to pump a huge amount of money into a scheme which the club feels is the right one for the club's future with all the financial benefits that would acrue from it.
Whatever you may think about the scheme it would be a corporate dereliction of duty not to challenge the dubious decision and and just walk away from what it ses as that great opportunity.
The decision was made on dubious financial grounds and without concrete guarantees so, whether it is overturned or not, it is important that these points are looked into thoroughly.

It is absolutely about accepting defeat for the sake of the club, the club will be cast in a very bad light if we spend the next few years in court fighting against a decision that the vast majority of the public support. You are right about the dubious financials of the West Ham scheme, and there may well be some questions that should be asked, but the public aren't interested in the facts when the decision has gone the way they want.

For all his business acumen DL has absolutely no idea about PR, we're not talking about a deal done behind closed doors for a player transfer or shirt sponsorship, this is something that is going in full view of the public and they don't care whether he's legally right or whether he can squeeze the last bit of cash out of the government for the NDP.

 

[worcestersauce]

It is absolutely about accepting defeat for the sake of the club, ...

No it isn't.

 

[PT]

It is absolutely about accepting defeat for the sake of the club, the club will be cast in a very bad light if we spend the next few years in court fighting against a decision that the vast majority of the public support. You are right about the dubious financials of the West Ham scheme, and there may well be some questions that should be asked, but the public aren't interested in the facts when the decision has gone the way they want.

For all his business acumen DL has absolutely no idea about PR, we're not talking about a deal done behind closed doors for a player transfer or shirt sponsorship, this is something that is going in full view of the public and they don't care whether he's legally right or whether he can squeeze the last bit of cash out of the government for the NDP.

Whilst I don't agree at all about your heel digging with no give, your comments above bear accuracy, if you don't mind me saying, and I fear for our Club's reputation should Me Levy decide in theory that we have a case to fight in court.

 

[felmani26]

Question time is in Stratford with Boris Johnson on the panel - wonder if any questions about the legitimacy of our bid will be raised.

 

[fozzi44]

Get over what?

Yes, I know he made a vague statement about 'spiralling costs'. He wasn't terribly specific about what these were, however (to say the least), and hasn't been since. Are you telling me you weren't just a little surprised when the initial announcement about non-viability was made just after planning permission was granted? I can tell you that Haringey Council were.

And now it's sour grapes and a judicial review. Whoopee!

I dont think Levy needs to be specific about what the spiralling costs are to be honest - it is unlikely he want to show all his cards given there are clearly political games afoot. 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? Lammy on talksport yesterday cited EH as adding millions to the cost of the project. Interestling he also stated that Levy had probably gambled on ENgland winning the world cup and a funding envelop becoming avaliable that would aid with the costs of redevelopment, as we know this went tits-up.

Of course i was surprised when the non-viability announcement was made. I was also very very relieved that we had made the decision not to press ahead when costs were so high. I am glad we continued ahead and got planning permission tho - at least we have that in the bag.

For the life of me i cannot understand how fans would be prepared to saddle the club with debt potentially risking another decade of pain all to remain in Tottenham - jeez when u are in a stadium you are in a stadium, doesnt matter if it is 5 - 10 miles away from tottenham.

I for one am completely with Levy on this one, West Ham get a new stadium for free and Newham also gets deemed a regeneration area. Complete joke. Man City get their Stadium for free - again government funding. Gooners financed theirs from sale of land that was much higher value than that which can be found in Tottenham. We have no idea what is going on behind the scenes but this latest move by the board is surely simply playing the political game.

 

[ThorntonSpur]

settle for one like the new cowboys stadium in arlington

 

[SpurSince57]

I dont think Levy needs to be specific about what the spiralling costs are to be honest - it is unlikely he want to show all his cards given there are clearly political games afoot. 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? Lammy on talksport yesterday cited EH as adding millions to the cost of the project. Interestling he also stated that Levy had probably gambled on ENgland winning the world cup and a funding envelop becoming avaliable that would aid with the costs of redevelopment, as we know this went tits-up.

Of course i was surprised when the non-viability announcement was made. I was also very very relieved that we had made the decision not to press ahead when costs were so high. I am glad we continued ahead and got planning permission tho - at least we have that in the bag.

For the life of me i cannot understand how fans would be prepared to saddle the club with debt potentially risking another decade of pain all to remain in Tottenham - jeez when u are in a stadium you are in a stadium, doesnt matter if it is 5 - 10 miles away from tottenham.

I for one am completely with Levy on this one, West Ham get a new stadium for free and Newham also gets deemed a regeneration area. Complete joke. Man City get their Stadium for free - again government funding. Gooners financed theirs from sale of land that was much higher value than that which can be found in Tottenham. We have no idea what is going on behind the scenes but this latest move by the board is surely simply playing the political game.

I can see why he wouldn't want to be specific if the spiralling of costs was due to miscalculations at the planning stage. We know exactly how much TfL wanted (and no, I have no idea why Spurs should be expected to pay for improvements at Tottenham Hale either), we know exactly how much the S106 payments are, and if Lammy thinks the EH requirements will add millions all I can say, again, is can I have the contract please? The club had no problem in converting the Corner Pin into a ticket office, did it? That could hardly have been cheap, but I very much doubt it cost a million, and none of the preserved buildings is in a much worse state. All of these things should have been foreseen, and if they weren't, why weren't they? Did Levy really expect the original plans to be rubber-stamped if there were flaws in them? Did it not occur to him that some people (and not just EH) might have a problem with the demolition of Grade 2 listed buildings?

The recession argument might hold good if the plans had been announced five years ago. However, the banks were already in meltdown by the time the club went public. Again, was this lack of foresight?

 

[sloth]

I can see why he wouldn't want to be specific if the spiralling of costs was due to miscalculations at the planning stage. We know exactly how much TfL wanted (and no, I have no idea why Spurs should be expected to pay for improvements at Tottenham Hale either), we know exactly how much the S106 payments are, and if Lammy thinks the EH requirements will add millions all I can say, again, is can I have the contract please? The club had no problem in converting the Corner Pin into a ticket office, did it? That could hardly have been cheap, but I very much doubt it cost a million, and none of the preserved buildings is in a much worse state. All of these things should have been foreseen, and if they weren't, why weren't they? Did Levy really expect the original plans to be rubber-stamped if there were flaws in them? Did it not occur to him that some people (and not just EH) might have a problem with the demolition of Grade 2 listed buildings?

The recession argument might hold good if the plans had been announced five years ago. However, the banks were already in meltdown by the time the club went public. Again, was this lack of foresight?

You missed out the drastic reduction in the number of flats we were allowed to build, down to something like 150 from 450.

And also the cost of borrowing will have risen for risky projects.

If it was estimated to cost £350m net, and we felt that was tough but doable, but now the net costs have risen to £450m, then that could easily have seen it over the brink.

Your argument that everything should have been foreseen, pre-supposes that it wasn't. They will almost certainly had a threshold and their estimate of total net cost would have been within a range subject to many variables. If at one end of the range then we go ahead, but if it turns out to be at the other then we consider the alternatives.

It's pretty simple really.

 

[SpurSince57]

Now it's proper flats rather than broom-cupboards, we might actually be able to sell them to owner-occupiers for a decent whack rather than flog them at cost to rental agencies. Do you seriously think that the number was reduced just for a laugh, or to be deliberately awkward?

Yes, the cost of borrowing will have risen.

 

[fozzi44]

I can see why he wouldn't want to be specific if the spiralling of costs was due to miscalculations at the planning stage. We know exactly how much TfL wanted (and no, I have no idea why Spurs should be expected to pay for improvements at Tottenham Hale either), we know exactly how much the S106 payments are, and if Lammy thinks the EH requirements will add millions all I can say, again, is can I have the contract please? The club had no problem in converting the Corner Pin into a ticket office, did it? That could hardly have been cheap, but I very much doubt it cost a million, and none of the preserved buildings is in a much worse state. All of these things should have been foreseen, and if they weren't, why weren't they? Did Levy really expect the original plans to be rubber-stamped if there were flaws in them? Did it not occur to him that some people (and not just EH) might have a problem with the demolition of Grade 2 listed buildings?

The recession argument might hold good if the plans had been announced five years ago. However, the banks were already in meltdown by the time the club went public. Again, was this lack of foresight?

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.

 

[MattyP]

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.

I can assure you that if Lammy stated that EH requirements added £16m to the cost of the project, then he is wrong.

Total professional fees on the NDP has been £23.7m. That's for both designs, incorporating all aspects of the development (stadium, supermarket, flats, museum, public square, everything), advice on getting planning permission, everything.

EH's requirements would have necessitated spending architects fees on resdesigning, plus probably some legal and professional fees as well. But at worst case scenario I'd say that would be £2-3m max.

There's no way renovating the properties would cost £13-14m. No way on this earth.