New Stadium Details And Discussions

[davidmatzdorf]

Heh, just read David's post on the letting of the piling works.

Great news as this should mean that the design is effectively done.

I am surprised that it is not all under the umbrella of a main contractor though.

I'm surprised too. It looks as if they've adopted a construction-management approach here, letting key subcontracts as they go, rather than laying off the risk onto a big lead contractor. It's not what I expected.

Reading between the lines, I'd speculate that the demolition of Fletcher House was on the critical path, but couldn't be done until a big enough contract had been let to satisfy the planning condition. The planning report confirms that they've managed to convince Haringey planners (probably with a bit of leverage from key councillors) that this structural contract qualifies, despite having a break clause to cover the CPO.

None of this is wildly different to the kind of stunts we used to pull to get some kind of 'building work' started by XX deadline when I worked for housing associations. I can't count the number of contractual manipulations we invented because we had to get some kind of building contract let by 31 March 19XX or lose a grant of £XX million.

 

[Ionman34]

I'm surprised too. It looks as if they've adopted a construction-management approach here, letting key subcontracts as they go, rather than laying off the risk onto a big lead contractor. It's not what I expected.

Reading between the lines, I'd speculate that the demolition of Fletcher House was on the critical path, but couldn't be done until a big enough contract had been let to satisfy the planning condition. The planning report confirms that they've managed to convince Haringey planners (probably with a bit of leverage from key councillors) that this structural contract qualifies, despite having a break clause to cover the CPO.

None of this is wildly different to the kind of stunts we used to pull to get some kind of 'building work' started by XX deadline when I worked for housing associations. I can't count the number of contractual manipulations we invented because we had to get some kind of building contract let by 31 March 19XX or lose a grant of £XX million.

I think the key there is the possibility of missing out on grants, as critical path is normally on the main contractor to avoid liquidated damages (loss of revenue to client for delayed trading etc). If not then it suggests that THFC have a completion date effectively set and they are progressing with that in mind.
If such is the case, I would expect the tender invites to go out very shortly after the CPO is resolved, assuming it goes in our favour.

Everything does appear to point at us looking to proceed with the construction tout suit though, despite the assertions of Mr Knob.

After all, who spends £50 million on foundation works just to pull the wool over the fans eyes?

 

[davidmatzdorf]

After all, who spends £50 million on foundation works just to pull the wool over the fans eyes?

As I recall the announcement and the planning report, the contract also includes the main stadium superstructure, as well as the foundations. I expect that means just the frame, sans fittings, cladding, roof, etc.

 

[Ionman34]

As I recall the announcement and the planning report, the contract also includes the main stadium superstructure, as well as the foundations. I expect that means just the frame, sans fittings, cladding, roof, etc.

Interesting and says to me that Spurs are confident the CPO will go through.
Strange that the faciia hasn't been included though.

 

[Aero]

I'm assuming that they will look to novate the contract over to a main contractor once the CPO gets through, but needed to make a start to achieve certain timelines that had been set by the council/grants/finanical institutions to get funding etc. I agree with David it is not a normal way that a Project of this size would be let necessary but for me it suggests that there must some element of risk around the CPO and so they are trying to limit that cost to the club.

 

[SpurSince57]

I'm assuming that they will look to novate the contract over to a main contractor once the CPO gets through, but needed to make a start to achieve certain timelines that had been set by the council/grants/finanical institutions to get funding etc. I agree with David it is not a normal way that a Project of this size would be let necessary but for me it suggests that there must some element of risk around the CPO and so they are trying to limit that cost to the club.

The club must be confident the appeal will be rejected, but would be foolish to take that outcome for granted. No-one seems to know if Archway can take matters further, or if they will be allowed to do so, so there remains the possibility of further delays.

 

[dovahkiin]

edmonton:
Thought I would pop over to see if this forum had been closed yet. Heard one very positive thing and one very negative thing recently but the new stadium is not really of interest given our multiple problems elsewhere.
The momentum of 4 years ago on the pitch has been lost and I agree with Grahame that we are likely to have trouble filling our current stadium once existing season tickets expire.
The aim of the new stadium was to give us the revenue to compete but we don't seem to be spending the existing TV money that other clubs are so I'm not sure even with 60k crowds much of the extra revenue would find it's way to the transfer kitty.

 

[Graysonti]

edmonton:
Thought I would pop over to see if this forum had been closed yet. Heard one very positive thing and one very negative thing recently but the new stadium is not really of interest given our multiple problems elsewhere.
The momentum of 4 years ago on the pitch has been lost and I agree with Grahame that we are likely to have trouble filling our current stadium once existing season tickets expire.
The aim of the new stadium was to give us the revenue to compete but we don't seem to be spending the existing TV money that other clubs are so I'm not sure even with 60k crowds much of the extra revenue would find it's way to the transfer kitty.

Davidmatsdorf > Edmonton

 

[Trix]

Davidmatsdorf > Edmonton

Edmonton has been bang on the money throughout this entire process.

 

[Graysonti]

Edmonton has been bang on the money throughout this entire process.

I've followed since 2008 on coys

Let's say he's star is falling

 

[worcestersauce]

As far as I can see that is edmonton's opinion on life at the club in general, nothing specific re the stadium so not really any more relevant than my opinion.
I still understand that the Archway appeal is final, after that they lose, the CPO is enacted they lose ownership and we move on, if they want to take it further and I still don't believe they can, it will be retrospective but won't reverse the CPO.

 

[SpurSince57]

Edmonton has been bang on the money throughout this entire process.

Has he? I've never been totally convinced. This latest seems to be opinion. What's happened to his special relationship with the Dear Leader?

A while back he posted that 'Daniel' had a few surprises for Haringey up his sleeve, also that 'Daniel' was angry that that he'd first heard about planning permission for the new station development at Tottenham Hale through the local rag. Those who have been following this saga from the off will know that the club's s.106 obligation included £5m towards the station rebuild. Levy succeeded in getting us out of this. Having done so, he really can't complain about being left out of the loop.

 

[davidmatzdorf]

Davidmatzdorf > Edmonton

Thanks. I think he's got inside information. I don't. But I think he's got a biased agenda. I don't.

 

[spursfan77]

Pretty sure Edmonton has never been biased one way or the other. If any one is insinuating he's very pro-levy then looking through his post history would tell you a completely different story. He just seems to report what he hears.

Anyway here's a bit more:

Edmonton, on 12 Nov 2014 - 08:03 AM, said:

The positive means ENIC are very serious about building it, the negative is a design issue which is so daft I'm not sure it can be true.

 

[worcestersauce]

Pretty sure Edmonton has never been biased one way or the other. If any one is insinuating he's very pro-levy then looking through his post history would tell you a completely different story. He just seems to report what he hears.

Anyway here's a bit more:

Edmonton, on 12 Nov 2014 - 08:03 AM, said:

The positive means ENIC are very serious about building it, the negative is a design issue which is so daft I'm not sure it can be true.

I'd say the positive beats the negative then by the sounds of it..

 

[Wine Gum]

Pretty sure Edmonton has never been biased one way or the other. If any one is insinuating he's very pro-levy then looking through his post history would tell you a completely different story. He just seems to report what he hears.

Anyway here's a bit more:

Edmonton, on 12 Nov 2014 - 08:03 AM, said:

The positive means ENIC are very serious about building it, the negative is a design issue which is so daft I'm not sure it can be true.

Now that the clearance work is underway for the civils work to start they have probably set out for the foundations and realised the stadium will not fit the footprint of land they have available to build it

 

[DiscoD1882]

Pretty sure Edmonton has never been biased one way or the other. If any one is insinuating he's very pro-levy then looking through his post history would tell you a completely different story. He just seems to report what he hears.

Anyway here's a bit more:

Edmonton, on 12 Nov 2014 - 08:03 AM, said:

The positive means ENIC are very serious about building it, the negative is a design issue which is so daft I'm not sure it can be true.

I reckon this design issue is that Daniel Levy wants to remove the golden cockeral and have a massive golden statue of himself erected instead. Not lifesize as that will be too small to the naked eye.

 

[markiespurs]

Pretty sure Edmonton has never been biased one way or the other. If any one is insinuating he's very pro-levy then looking through his post history would tell you a completely different story. He just seems to report what he hears.

Anyway here's a bit more:

Edmonton, on 12 Nov 2014 - 08:03 AM, said:

The positive means ENIC are very serious about building it, the negative is a design issue which is so daft I'm not sure it can be true.

Probably arguing what shade of blue the seats in the new ground should be

 

[worcestersauce]

Probably arguing what shade of blue the seats in the new ground should be

Navy!

 

[andyp8080]

Navy!

I hope so

I hate our current Chelsea blue seats