New Stadium Details And Discussions

[CoopsieDeadpool]

David will know a lot more about this stuff than I do, but I'm pretty sure they can make an appeal to the High Court and that that will be that.

Again, thank you SS57 . Based solely upon what you've told me, it appears that just one appeal can be made, it'll go to the High Court, and their decision will be final. Hopefully they'll have the common sense to see that it's best for the whole community, if they judge in favour of the club & the Council. Still, we don't know how bloody long the appeal could take, if they do indeed appeal

 

[Harry Barber]

This CPO decision for Archway steel. We've been told that it should be made early this year, so I guess any time now, with that May 5th date being the provisional starting date. IF this CPO is served to Archway Steel, is that 'final', and they have no choice but to vacate the premises?

They can appeal all the way to Europe. So that May 5th date is just pie in the sky.

 

[CoopsieDeadpool]

They can appeal all the way to Europe. So that May 5th date is just pie in the sky.

Well all I can say to that, is "fuck"!! Probably best not to expect anything any time soon then, and all because of just 1 bloody family, a family that has been offered alternative premises, in a better location, as well as a handsome fee for relocating?

 

[L.A. Yiddo]

Well all I can say to that, is "fuck"!! Probably best not to expect anything any time soon then, and all because of just 1 bloody family, a family that has been offered alternative premises, in a better location, as well as a handsome fee for relocating?

..... and rumoured to be massive Romany fans.

 

[absolute bobbins]

They can appeal all the way to Europe. So that May 5th date is just pie in the sky.

If it is Archway, what European Law could they argue applies?

 

[SpurSince57]

If it is Archway, what European Law could they argue applies?

Call this a crazy out-of-left-field guess if you will, but I don't think the European Convention on Human Rights covers Compulsory Purchase.

 

[absolute bobbins]

Call this a crazy out-of-left-field guess if you will, but I don't think the European Convention on Human Rights covers Compulsory Purchase.

Surely any attempt to apply the ECHR would be laughed

Protocol 1 Article 1 states

Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.

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.

 

[davidmatzdorf]

The protocol was designed with the assets seizures that the Nazis committed against people like my grandfather...

And mine. He was framed on trumped-up currency violations in order to seize the family business and transfer it to Gentile owners. He wasn't exonerated (posthumously) until the 50s.

Turning to the Compulsory Purchase Order, it is very difficult to resist a CPO that has been applied for in order to advance a major regeneration scheme. The whole point of a CPO is to prevent individual, obstinate local landowners from obstructing major projects of crucial local importance.

Where the wrangles always arise is in setting the market value that the landowner is offered for the land. It's not strictly 'compensation', it's a purchase price set at market value. But the local authority generally has a tame valuer who is briefed to set the value low and the landowners will equip themselves with a troublesome solicitor to contest every line of the CPO and every calculation in the valuation.

It's about money. The only CPOs I have ever known that have been refused for sites in regeneration zones have been wrecked by procedural errors committed by the local authority solicitors, not on their merits. The smoke and fuss being generated by Archway may well be effective in shaking a lot more money out of Haringey, but I would be very surprised if it were effective in preventing the compulsory purchase from going ahead ... eventually.

I don't know anything about the appeals procedure, but I doubt that it has anything at all to do with the European Court of Human Rights. There isn't a human rights issue at stake here.

 

[dagraham]

Well all I can say to that, is "fuck"!! Probably best not to expect anything any time soon then, and all because of just 1 bloody family, a family that has been offered alternative premises, in a better location, as well as a handsome fee for relocating?

Where's Tony Soprano and his crew when you need them eh? .

 

[spud]

Call this a crazy out-of-left-field guess if you will, but I don't think the European Convention on Human Rights covers Compulsory Purchase.

I'm out of touch regarding this, but many European Community laws take precedence over those of nation states, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if Archway had a path to the EC courts as an ultimate appeal forum.

 

[worcestersauce]

Presumably any appeal would have time constraints and so couldn't be open ended and drag on forever.
I would also assume compensation would based on land value and any likely detrimental effect on business so ultimately they would get less than the club are willing to pay them, if they have lawyers worth the name they should advise them of that.
Plus any case and appeal would take into account alternatives that have been offered such as the new site so all in all I don't see archway being more than a mild irritant.

 

[SpurSince57]

I'm out of touch regarding this, but many European Community laws take precedence over those of nation states, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if Archway had a path to the EC courts as an ultimate appeal forum.

www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN01149.pdf‎

Article 1 – Protection of property

Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.

Archway would only have recourse to Europe if no compensation were being offered.

 

[CoopsieDeadpool]

Thanks so much @davidmatzdorf , @absolute bobbins , @jambreck and @SpursSince57

 

[Spur-of-the-moment]

I'm guessing a bit here. I don't know what publication that redacted image is from - looks like a journal in which upcoming major tenders are published for the benefit of the construction industry. So I also don't know how accurate the figure might [not] be.

The fact that it says 'calculated' suggests to me that the publication have worked out the figure, based on limited information & their assumptions, as opposed to being told by THFC that the project will be funded with £188.2m of private investment, i.e., money from outside the club. That would suggest that the publication is [also?] aimed at investors, i.e., venture capitalists who commonly bankroll development projects.

The gap between the figures of £188.2m here and the total mooted cost of £450m is partly accounted for by the Northern Development, which I am pretty sure has been cash-flowed by Sainsbury's, partly accounted for by the possibility that the club is seeking to fund part of the scheme with an equity investor (possibly the same as the beneficiary of the naming rights? I'm guessing again...) and partly accounted for by an element of direct investment by ENIC.

I don't think the build period of one year for the whole stadium, the four refurbished listed buildings, the retail, the infrastructure improvements and the piazza is remotely realistic. It wouldn't surprise me if the publication's database has a default 12 month construction period unless someone inputs something else and no one knows, so they haven't entered anything.

David, I think someone's having a laugh at our expense. The document indicates the stadium will be built in just a year. Moreover £188.2m is a suspiciously precise figure and there's the clue: 1882.

A red herring or, given the auspicious date, a blue and white one...

 

[Colonel Dax]

Well all I can say to that, is "fuck"!! Probably best not to expect anything any time soon then, and all because of just 1 bloody family, a family that has been offered alternative premises, in a better location, as well as a handsome fee for relocating?

I don't blame them. If I were in their position and supported another team, I'd be holding out for as long as possible and be looking for the best possible deal too.

 

[jambreck]

I don't blame them. If I were in their position and supported another team, I'd be holding out for as long as possible and be looking for the best possible deal too.

Equally if, as a consequence of their perfectly legitimate obstinacy, they end up receiving even less than they have already been offered (as could very easily happen), then I presume that you will not sympathise with them either. It was their roll of the dice and, if they lose, they can have no one to blame but themselves.

 

[Colonel Dax]

Equally if, as a consequence of their perfectly legitimate obstinacy, they end up receiving even less than they have already been offered (as could very easily happen), then I presume that you will not sympathise with them either. It was their roll of the dice and, if they lose, they can have no one to blame but themselves.

Indeed, I won't have any sympathy should that happen. However, looking at it objectively (without my Tottenham Hotspur supporting instincts switched on), I almost admire them for standing up to Goliath

 

[jambreck]

They're certainly perfectly entitled to dig their heels in.

I wouldn't say that what they are doing is admirable, though. Their dispute isn't based on a point of principle. Nor is it about saving their business. They're simply trying to squeeze as much money out of Haringey / Spurs as they can.

Which makes this less a David and Goliath struggle and more a garden-variety playing of the system.

 

[Spurger King]

Time for us to open a bigger and better sheet metal works company next door. 'Starbucks' the place out of business!

 

[Locotoro]

Call this a crazy out-of-left-field guess if you will, but I don't think the European Convention on Human Rights covers Compulsory Purchase.

They do.

Specifically the protection of assets and the right to enjoy ones private life

Edit: just seen someone has already made this point.