New Stadium Details And Discussions

[Lilbaz]

Exactly, I wasn't joking about ENIC either, if they could get our stadium built fairly quickly and then sold quickly it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see them buy NUFC.

Levy and ENIC running Newcastle hell that's so much less work than what they've had to do with us. It's a scary thought.

All those who slag ENIC and Levy, I'd rather be with them than against them perhaps more so Levy.

Not too much scope of growth for Newcastle/ The only way you'd make money on your investment would be success on the pitch, which would cost a lot. Leeds/Cardiff/Sheff Wed would probably be easier.

 

[bryanabutler]

Not too much scope of growth for Newcastle/ The only way you'd make money on your investment would be success on the pitch, which would cost a lot. Leeds/Cardiff/Sheff Wed would probably be easier.

So would A Villa

 

[fridgemagnet]

In it's favour Newcastle is a one club city.

 

[Spurger King]

In it's favour Newcastle is a one club city.

But think of moving from London to be surrounded by a bunch of Geordies? It's a place where everyone sounds like they've had a stroke.

 

[Lilbaz]

In it's favour Newcastle is a one club city.

Yes but at the moment capacity and merchandising are about right. The only way to increase their value is to have success on the pitch. It cost City and Chelsea over £1bn to do that. With FFP it will be incredibly difficult.

Anyway this is not really anything to do with our new stadium.

 

[davidmatzdorf]

No, because it's bullshit. We have not received any public money for our stadium. S106 agreements are made on a case by case basis for regeneration of the surrounding area. Harringey I believe even asked the EC for financial help after the riots. Are the EC going to do themselves for state aid?

The issue described in the piece is not about "public money". There are other forms of support that can be considered as "state aid". It's a very arcane area and covers a lot more than direct grant support. Also, the S.106 Agreement is irrelevant to what is being described in the article.

The story may well be bullshit, but not for the reason you stated. Unfortunately, my detailed knowledge about the law on these issues is lacking. I'm just aware that a lot of support-in-kind can be deemed to be "state aid", not just cash.

 

[Lilbaz]

So apart from the S106's, what aid have we been given? It's not the CPO decision, that was settled in court.

 

[Spursnw10]

i might have it wrong, but think at a reduced capacity, they can get around this.
Not sure what it would be reduced too, but still bigger than WHL

With the top tier closed it'll be reduced to 52k.We could have the top tier closed for most games, then have it all full capacity for 'category a' games.Ideal!

 

[Spursidol]

The issue described in the piece is not about "public money". There are other forms of support that can be considered as "state aid". It's a very arcane area and covers a lot more than direct grant support. Also, the S.106 Agreement is irrelevant to what is being described in the article.

The story may well be bullshit, but not for the reason you stated. Unfortunately, my detailed knowledge about the law on these issues is lacking. I'm just aware that a lot of support-in-kind can be deemed to be "state aid", not just cash.

So apart from the S106's, what aid have we been given? It's not the CPO decision, that was settled in court.

The article makes a whole series of vague accusations, which include :

1. That Spurs are somehow benefitting from the locality are being renovated with a huge amount of public money (which might even include aid from the EU).

Sounds reasonable, until it becomes obvious that no local authority could renovate an area, as by doing so its pretty likey that the value of all houses/flats in the area is likely to go up as well as the attractiveness of any business in the area.

Allied with this is the insinuation that Harringey have been 'too pally' with Spurs. However unless Spurs have been too lavish with entertainment or other benefits provided to the council, its unlikely that anything untoward would be found.

2 There is allegation that Moselle Square is a big benefit to and favours Spurs. The counter argument of course is that Spurs have paid to build a big public square outside the stadium, and the council is fulfilling its duty to provide safe exits from the Spurs built square - if Harringey could widen all the pavements they might have done this. However Harringey are building a wide square with associated cafes/bars/shops to safely accomodate people, is this different to the wide pavements provided in Oxford Street to allow pedestrians to shop in safety, should any shops be asked to fund wider pavements or pedestrian only developments in any future town developments ?

3. There is an allegation that the reduction in s 106 requirements from £16m to £smaller constitutes state aid. However there is plenty of evidence around that s 106 amounts demanded from property developers nosedived with the start of the 2008 europewide (and indeed worldwide) financial crisis. So the council position of reducing the amount to keep a core tenant' in the area at a then normal commercial 'deal' would seem to be difficult to refute.

I'm sure that evidence would also be presented to show that Spurs have been supporting Harringey with a number of initiatives, not only Spurs foundation, but also the Brook House development etc, which demonstrate that Spurs are not 'freeloading'.

The article says that the evidence has been sent to the EU commission to make a decision as to whether to investigate futher. I get the feeling its the site itself (or other Arsenal fans) which have submitted a letter to EU based on the article, and unless there is something substantially more than in the article, the EU will file the letter in a folder called 'nutters' - its certainly nothing like the situation with Real Madrid's property transations. with the state, nor is it like the tax deal granted by the Spanish state etc which the article tries to associate Spurs with

 

[neilp]

The article makes a whole series of vague accusations, which include :

1. That Spurs are somehow benefitting from the llocal are being renovated with a huge amount of public money (which might even include aid from the EU).

Sounds reasonable, until it becomes obvious that no local authority could renovate an area, as by doing so its pretty likey that the value of all houses/flats in the area is likely to go up as well as the attractiveness of any business in the area.

Allied with this is the insinuation that Harringey have been 'too pally' with Spurs. However unless Spurs have been too lavish with entertainment of other benefits provided to the council, its unlikely that anything untoward would be found.

2 There is allegation that Moselle Square is a big benefit to abd favours Spurs. The counter argument of course is that Spurs have paid to build a big public square outside the stadium, and the council is fulfilling its duty to provide safe exits from the Spurs built square - if Harringey could widen all the pavements they might have done this. However Harringey are building a wide square with associated cafes/bars/shops to safely accomodate people, is this different to the wide pavements provided in Oxford Street to allow pedestrians to shop in safety, should any shops be asked to fund wider pavements or pedestrian only developments in any future town developments ?

3. There is an allegation that the reduction in s 106 requirements from £16m to £smaller constitutes state aid. However there is plenty of evidence around that s 106 amounts demanded from property developers nosedived with the start of the 2008 europewide (and indeed worldwide) financial crisis. So the council position of reducing the amount to keep a core tenant' in the area at a then normal commercial 'deal' would seem to be difficult to refute.

I'm sure that evidence would also be presented to show that Spurs have been supporting Harringey with a number of initiatives, not only Spurs foundation, but also the Brook House development etc, which demonstrate that Spurs are not 'freeloading'.

The article says that the evidence has been sent to the EU commission to make a decision as to whether to investigate futher. I get the feeling its the site itself (or other Arsenal fans) which have submitted a letter to EU based on the article, and unless there is something substantially more than in the article, the EU will file the letter in a folder called 'nutters' - its certainly nothing like the situation with Real Madrid's property transations. with the staste, nor is it like the tax deal granted by the Spanish state etc which the article tries to associate Spurs with

That's a well written and thought out, informative piece you have posted.

What the fuck are you trying to do to this site?

 

[spursfan77]

I took some photos of the development site yesterday. I'll upload them tomorrow when I get 5 minutes. They've dug quite a big hole now and also they've put metal sheets in the ground to create the outline of the stands

 

[Lilbaz]

I took some photos of the development site yesterday. I'll upload them tomorrow when I get 5 minutes. They've dug quite a big hole now and also they've put metal sheets in the ground to create the outline of the stands

Prick tease.

 

[spursfan77]

Prick tease.

Sorry!

I actually thought they've done quite a lot.

edit: found out how to upload from my phone so see below.

 

[spursfan77]

You can see the inner metal sheets here marking the inside of the stand or edge of pitch area

 

[spursfan77]

This next one is a bit rubbish but better than nothing.

 

[archiewasking]

Are you sure it's not just a giant sandbox for all the local kitties??

 

[Spurger King]

Are you sure it's not just a giant sandbox for all the local kitties??

It will be if we carry on playing like a bunch of pussies.

 

[Flashspur]

now now

 

[talkshowhost86]

Looks like they're about to build a BMX track.

 

[GMI]

It will be if we carry on playing like a bunch of pussies.

Well Pussy Filling are still onsite looking at the first photo