New Stadium Details And Discussions

[Phischy]

They weren't.



It's a moot point, because there isn't a development in London where things "went smoothly" in the sense you mean. It never happens; it isn't possible.The English planning system makes it impossible. I was posting 7+ years ago that it would take us 7+ years to get this built and everyone told me I was being pessimistic. It's always like this. Even building 5 flats turns into a multi-year saga.



They weren't.



The result of the riot was that it made funding available for a neighbourhood-wide regeneration programme. The obvious centrepiece for that was the stadium development and that unquestionably ratcheted up Haringey's enthusiasm for the project several notches.

But it is false to state that the council were being obstructive prior to the riot. They were doing their job, which was to vet a major development proposal - specifically, their job was to require the developer to provide the planning benefits (such as affordable housing) that were mandated by the policies of the time - before Mayor Johnson and the coalition government removed and diluted many of those requirements, especially those related to affordable housing.

Prior to the riot, the council were guardedly supportive in private and neutral in public. After the riot, when the regeneration funding appeared, they became cheerleaders for the NDP.

Thanks David and interesting to hear the various views on my question.

I was a big part of the campaign to keep Spurs in Tottenham; it wasn't something is planned to get in to but I started the petition and ended up doing a fair bit of the media. I can reassure that the council was 100% in favour of keeping the club in Tottenham and therefore developing in Tottenham. The issue is the council can't break planning rules and laws and allow the club to do what it wants simply so they will stay. So they did all they could within the rules laid out. The slightly biased can view is obviously that rules and red tape are being put up just to hamper us, when in fact they are designed to protect every locale against unscrupulous developers and we have to pay the game as much as anyone else.

We may have been a little ahead of where we are in Stratford, or maybe not as we'd have had to go through planning with Newham anyway. All I think is we are sending up with an incredible stadium where we belong; and for all Levy's rhetoric and the propaganda the club was putting out about the benefits of Stratford, and that this build wouldn't be viable, we are here doing it and it's going to be phenomenal!

 

[Croftwoodspurs]

New:

[/QUOTE]

Sorry just catching up and have not read all the posts... But wish they would get someone who knew about football. The ? Is why has the linesman run all the way down the line... Must be a spurs fan... He's going to get tired very quickly if he does that for every attack...

Back to reading rest of the thread to see someone else has posted the same thing a few pages down...

 

[sundanceyid10]

This is a real thing now isnt it. Its hitting me now. I might never be able to go to a place I have come to adore with all my heart and it saddens me to no end. I'm almost in tears now

Hopefully you get to the new ground, and the club is its fans at heart and you are one of those, dont be sad.

 

[L.A. Yiddo]

Old static pics still updating and available here by the way:

http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/new-scheme/stadium-tv/old/

 

[chaching]

Thanks David and interesting to hear the various views on my question.

I was a big part of the campaign to keep Spurs in Tottenham; it wasn't something is planned to get in to but I started the petition and ended up doing a fair bit of the media. I can reassure that the council was 100% in favour of keeping the club in Tottenham and therefore developing in Tottenham. The issue is the council can't break planning rules and laws and allow the club to do what it wants simply so they will stay. So they did all they could within the rules laid out. The slightly biased can view is obviously that rules and red tape are being put up just to hamper us, when in fact they are designed to protect every locale against unscrupulous developers and we have to pay the game as much as anyone else.

We may have been a little ahead of where we are in Stratford, or maybe not as we'd have had to go through planning with Newham anyway. All I think is we are sending up with an incredible stadium where we belong; and for all Levy's rhetoric and the propaganda the club was putting out about the benefits of Stratford, and that this build wouldn't be viable, we are here doing it and it's going to be phenomenal!

I supported the Stratford move at the time. I don't think we would be where we are today if it wasn't jointly for the threat of us leaving the area and the riots.

The preferred option was always to stay in Tottenham if viable but that was going to be too difficult especially with the infrastructure as it was, ultimately the club and its fans has outgrown the area so moving would have to be an option. (Living in Essex it would have also made it easier for me to get to games.) Lucky enough for us the riots and the threat of us leaving focused the minds of the relevant parties to improve the local infrastucture both in order to improve the area and to keep spurs in Tottenham to also in-turn improve the local infrastructure more.

If the riots hadn't happened and we had not bid for Stratford there is no way of telling where we would be right now. I would suspect we would still be looking for a location to put our fancy stadium. Also Westham would be in a stadium that they owned that they could pretty much do what they wanted with for next to nothing rather than renting an athletics stadium that they can't do that much with. Westham were always going to win that battle because Seb Coe wanted his "legacy" that actually leaves London worst off for Athletics provisions than before the Olympics. At least we made it a bit harder for them.

To answer your question no regrets at all and its turning out much better than I could have anticipated.

 

[Lilbaz]

I supported the Stratford move at the time. I don't think we would be where we are today if it wasn't jointly for the threat of us leaving the area and the riots.

The preferred option was always to stay in Tottenham if viable but that was going to be too difficult especially with the infrastructure as it was, ultimately the club and its fans has outgrown the area so moving would have to be an option. (Living in Essex it would have also made it easier for me to get to games.) Lucky enough for us the riots and the threat of us leaving focused the minds of the relevant parties to improve the local infrastucture both in order to improve the area and to keep spurs in Tottenham to also in-turn improve the local infrastructure more.

If the riots hadn't happened and we had not bid for Stratford there is no way of telling where we would be right now. I would suspect we would still be looking for a location to put our fancy stadium. Also Westham would be in a stadium that they owned that they could pretty much do what they wanted with for next to nothing rather than renting an athletics stadium that they can't do that much with. Westham were always going to win that battle because Seb Coe wanted his "legacy" that actually leaves London worst off for Athletics provisions than before the Olympics. At least we made it a bit harder for them.

To answer your question no regrets at all and its turning out much better than I could have anticipated.

Seb Coe wanted his legacy but he also owns major shares in the company responsible for redeveloping the land crystal palace athletics stadium sits on.

 

[Dougal]

Fortunately Tottenham went up in flames which changed the whole landscape

And to think there's uproar when the police shoot a black man. No one has taken the time to see the positives that come out of it. Can you imagine the kind of regeneration going on in America right now? I hope they all get a climbing wall and an ice rink to improve their local areas too.

 

[DEFchenkOE]

I'm sure this has been done to death so if someone can point me to a link or the page where it has this info, but how are we paying for this stadium?

Tv money?
sponsorship?
having little to no net spend over the past few years?
Change from Joe Lewis' backpocket?

All of the above?

 

[al_pacino]

I'm sure this has been done to death so if someone can point me to a link or the page where it has this info, but how are we paying for this stadium?

Tv money?
sponsorship?
having little to no net spend over the past few years?
Change from Joe Lewis' backpocket?

All of the above?

At least three of the above i'd guess with Lewis helping with some of the sponsorship coming in.

 

[yankspurs]

I'm sure this has been done to death so if someone can point me to a link or the page where it has this info, but how are we paying for this stadium?

Tv money?
sponsorship?
having little to no net spend over the past few years?
Change from Joe Lewis' backpocket?

All of the above?

TV money, sponsorship, merchandise money, and we have secured a £300m loan facility if we choose to use it

 

[davidmatzdorf]

I'm sure this has been done to death so if someone can point me to a link or the page where it has this info, but how are we paying for this stadium?

Tv money?
sponsorship?
having little to no net spend over the past few years?
Change from Joe Lewis' backpocket?

All of the above?

TV money, sponsorship, merchandise money, and we have secured a £300m loan facility if we choose to use it

I think it's really closer to "none of the above" . The £300m loan facility is going to cover a lot of the short term cash flow issues, but I think the other main source of capital is going to be an equity investor: they take a share of the asset value in exchange for a providing a share of the funding.

I doubt very much that Joe Lewis will personally fund any of it. His vehicle for funding projects is ENIC, of which he owns 70%, not his personal fortune.

The TV money is revenue funding, not capital funding. Indirectly, it's of benefit to the stadium development, because it enables us to trade at a profit and accumulated profit could eventually reduce our borrowing requirement for the NDP, but it isn't capital investment.

Does "sponsorship" mean naming rights? The last I read, that was also going to be negotiated as annual revenue, rather than a one-off capital injection into the project. A naming rights sponsor apparently won't want to tie up the money until they see the actual stadium. So I've read.

It's important to realise that about £100m of the project doesn't require funding, because it's already been paid for: the land, the design, the planning consent and Phase 1 (Lilywhite House).

There are really two questions here: as always with development, there is one question about short term cash flow and another question about long term viability.

The question being asked sounds as if it is about cash-funding the build. Phase 1 is already completed and Phase 2 will be largely covered by the £300m facility. Phase 3 doesn't even have detailed planning consent yet and I anticipate that it will largely be cash-flowed by residential- and hotel-development partners.

The second question is how the resulting shortfall will be converted to long term debt and whether servicing that debt will be sustainable for the club, given its footballing ambitions. That is unknown at present, for at least two major reasons: no one knows what interest rates will be in 3-4 years and, even more crucially, no one knows how much selling the housing will raise when it is finished.

 

[Phischy]

I supported the Stratford move at the time. I don't think we would be where we are today if it wasn't jointly for the threat of us leaving the area and the riots.

The preferred option was always to stay in Tottenham if viable but that was going to be too difficult especially with the infrastructure as it was, ultimately the club and its fans has outgrown the area so moving would have to be an option. (Living in Essex it would have also made it easier for me to get to games.) Lucky enough for us the riots and the threat of us leaving focused the minds of the relevant parties to improve the local infrastucture both in order to improve the area and to keep spurs in Tottenham to also in-turn improve the local infrastructure more.

If the riots hadn't happened and we had not bid for Stratford there is no way of telling where we would be right now. I would suspect we would still be looking for a location to put our fancy stadium. Also Westham would be in a stadium that they owned that they could pretty much do what they wanted with for next to nothing rather than renting an athletics stadium that they can't do that much with. Westham were always going to win that battle because Seb Coe wanted his "legacy" that actually leaves London worst off for Athletics provisions than before the Olympics. At least we made it a bit harder for them.

To answer your question no regrets at all and its turning out much better than I could have anticipated.

I'm sorry to tell you, that having met with Daniel and Donna, face to face to discuss, the preferred option was most certainly not staying in Tottenham. They were 100% set on leaving and going to Stratford and they were willing to do anything within reason to achieve it. It was more than an option, but the club were approaching the move very carefully as they knew (as anyone would know having considered it) that you couldn't simply announce an intention to move without pitching the benefits first. The club controlled the dialogue until we were involved.

The riots may well have had an impact, it's hard to know, but I know what the council position was, the riots only really galvanised the national government to do something it previously wasn't considering - putting money into Tottenham. The real letting factor was the decision on the Olympic stadium which we spent a long time, together with UKA trying to bring to the fore. Until then, there was a very real possibility that the OS would have gone to Tottenham, with Boris' influence.

I understand how things appeared on the outside watching it happen, but to be frank, public perception that Spurs didn't really want to go to Stratford or that it was some ploy to convince the council was our biggest issue. Daniel said to me, outright, that my actions and those of the people I was working with would be responsible for killing the club (if we got our way) - i.e. that remaining in Tottenham would lead to the end of Tottenham Hotspur. The council were with us in wanting to stay and doing anything they legally could to facilitate, it was a financial decision, pure and simple.

This is why I asked the question, because at this point I feel vindicated in my view that staying in Tottenham and building there was not only viable but the only real way the club should move forward and our sporting success depends on a great deal more than whether we are in Stratford or Tottenham.

 

[chaching]

I'm sorry to tell you, that having met with Daniel and Donna, face to face to discuss, the preferred option was most certainly not staying in Tottenham. They were 100% set on leaving and going to Stratford and they were willing to do anything within reason to achieve it. It was more than an option, but the club were approaching the move very carefully as they knew (as anyone would know having considered it) that you couldn't simply announce an intention to move without pitching the benefits first. The club controlled the dialogue until we were involved.

The riots may well have had an impact, it's hard to know, but I know what the council position was, the riots only really galvanised the national government to do something it previously wasn't considering - putting money into Tottenham. The real letting factor was the decision on the Olympic stadium which we spent a long time, together with UKA trying to bring to the fore. Until then, there was a very real possibility that the OS would have gone to Tottenham, with Boris' influence.

I understand how things appeared on the outside watching it happen, but to be frank, public perception that Spurs didn't really want to go to Stratford or that it was some ploy to convince the council was our biggest issue. Daniel said to me, outright, that my actions and those of the people I was working with would be responsible for killing the club (if we got our way) - i.e. that remaining in Tottenham would lead to the end of Tottenham Hotspur. The council were with us in wanting to stay and doing anything they legally could to facilitate, it was a financial decision, pure and simple.

This is why I asked the question, because at this point I feel vindicated in my view that staying in Tottenham and building there was not only viable but the only real way the club should move forward and our sporting success depends on a great deal more than whether we are in Stratford or Tottenham.

I am aware with what you are saying but at that time there were too many barriers being put up to stay in Tottenham. Obviously the council wanted us to stay but it was issues that they couldn't control that was getting in the way.

The bid for Stratford was serious as at the time that was the only viable option. We were unlikely to get it even though it was the only option that provided a decent result for the tax payer, Athletes, Athletic fans and football fans. Instead to get the "legacy" and Seb a few extra pounds for his piggy bank they had to go for a solution that doesn't really help anyone.

To stay in Tottenham, It needed help from various other authorities none of which had any appetite to assist until the riots. That's when it highlighted how bad things had got in Tottenham and it was noted how much the area needed the club. Then all of a sudden these authorities sat up and started helping things move along.

I am glad it worked out like it did but if it wasn't for the combination of us looking to leave and the riots there is no way of knowing what would have happened.

 

[Speedy]

Just as an aside, the 'riots' as a shorthand is a bit reductive. A unarmed man was murdered by the police, which sparked real anger and exposed the poverty of the area to a national audience. It wasn't a bolt from the blue, it was building over 30,50 maybe 100 years of deprivation, generations of poverty at least. I was working next to where the guy was shot the next morning, the shopping precinct was burned down.

The political will to action brought the area and the stadium into serious public money and private investment for the first time in its history in many respects. Those little fuckers might have been nicking trainers but real injustice has occurred, not just Duggan but political deprivation, real neglect. When we rebuild our stadium we are part of something bigger. We shouldn't detach ourselves from the social conditions, we owe our clubs new life to them.

Sorry, I just get fed up with seeing 'the riots' like we did a number on the council. What we are doing is right and good and positive, not mugging off some councillors so that we don't go to Stratford. I would never have gone, the club would have died that day. It was wrong then and it's wrong now, case closed.

 

[Spursidol]

I'm sure this has been done to death so if someone can point me to a link or the page where it has this info, but how are we paying for this stadium?

Tv money?
sponsorship?
having little to no net spend over the past few years?
Change from Joe Lewis' backpocket?

All of the above?

http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/AttachmentShowServlet?ImageName=776562
This formed part of the final planning application, so the details may well have moved on since then but in essence the overall funding scheme may well be the same.

Worth reading the 16 page letter from KPMG in full but if short of time Section 4 from pages 6 - 10,

In essence the letter discusses a £350m bank loan to fund the Northumberland Park Development (including the stadium) which it assumes requires funding of £675m - £750m including DSRA (Debt Service Reserve Account - usually a quarter or half year's bank repayment required to be put into a bank account on drawdown of funds. so is purely a cash flow item, not a cost ) and capitalised interest costs. I'd guess the DSRA and capitalised interest could well be £100m+ and the flats/hotel (the other pieces of the NDP) say £200m, leaving the stadium at less than £350m including the £100m already spent on it - but the DSRA/interest costs and flats are a pure guess.

The letter then discusses a whole load of other funding items including stadium sponsorship, 'cornerstone financing (a US term for a scheme of key advertisers), financial mechanisms of loans, equity etc, a contribution from the sale of flats etc.

Its worth noting that in economic terms that the stadium sponsorship money (and indeed many sponsorship deals) and paid annually) but they are a contract with a 'blue chip' company usually with a 'AAA' credit rating and with that contract in place as collateral security to guarantee repayments a banks lending terms will be far better than the likes of Spurs (with a relatively small balance sheet) could ever get. So a stadium naming deal of (say) £15m pa for say 20 years (ie £300m being £15m for 20 years) ensures that Spurs can borrow about £300m at very low interest rates - with repayments guaranteed by the contract with the blue chip sponsor.

And in addition that whilst the stadium itself will generate much higher revenues from the increased capacity and also get more advertising revenues etc, banks are notoriously sceptical about using these as security for loans - so the stadium sponsorship and cornerstone advertising are key components of getting bank finance to build the stadium. If as we understand, the stadium sponsorship deal is signed late in the construction of the stadium, the bank deals will be renegotiated (for a fee) so as to give the bank better security by giving them the sponsorship deals as collateral in return for reduced interest rates payable and other better terms from the bank such as extending the repayment terms etc

 

[worcestersauce]

I'm sorry to tell you, that having met with Daniel and Donna, face to face to discuss, the preferred option was most certainly not staying in Tottenham. They were 100% set on leaving and going to Stratford and they were willing to do anything within reason to achieve it. It was more than an option, but the club were approaching the move very carefully as they knew (as anyone would know having considered it) that you couldn't simply announce an intention to move without pitching the benefits first. The club controlled the dialogue until we were involved.

The riots may well have had an impact, it's hard to know, but I know what the council position was, the riots only really galvanised the national government to do something it previously wasn't considering - putting money into Tottenham. The real letting factor was the decision on the Olympic stadium which we spent a long time, together with UKA trying to bring to the fore. Until then, there was a very real possibility that the OS would have gone to Tottenham, with Boris' influence.

I understand how things appeared on the outside watching it happen, but to be frank, public perception that Spurs didn't really want to go to Stratford or that it was some ploy to convince the council was our biggest issue. Daniel said to me, outright, that my actions and those of the people I was working with would be responsible for killing the club (if we got our way) - i.e. that remaining in Tottenham would lead to the end of Tottenham Hotspur. The council were with us in wanting to stay and doing anything they legally could to facilitate, it was a financial decision, pure and simple.

This is why I asked the question, because at this point I feel vindicated in my view that staying in Tottenham and building there was not only viable but the only real way the club should move forward and our sporting success depends on a great deal more than whether we are in Stratford or Tottenham.

Putting aside our history for a moment (I know but bear with me), given the opportunity of building a spanking new football and NFL stadium in London, with no previous ties to one place or another, would the majority of people choose to build it on a restricted space wedged in between a bunch of old houses on Tottenham high road or on its own island in the prestigious Olympic park with acres of space around and at the hub of the underground, overground, national rail, Docklands light railway, bus routes and Eurostar direct links to the continent?
If you tell me most people would choose the former rather than the latter I would suggest that you were in the minority, from a business and sporting point of view it is a no brainer and I would imagine Daniel Levy saw it that way too.
In the end for all the reasons people already know we are building where our history is (see, I brought it back in), I am happy with that especially as when it became clear Lord Coe and his chums wouldn't let us build a stadium in the Olympic park and at the same time leave a true lasting legacy for UK athletics, once they'd done that the scales tipped back to Tottenham.
As I posted before, I have no regrets but I am still under no illusion as to which was the best option all things being equal.
I know there are Spurs fans who don't see it this way and some even question my loyalties but I don't care, I only want what's best for my club.

 

[Spursidol]

I'm sorry to tell you, that having met with Daniel and Donna, face to face to discuss, the preferred option was most certainly not staying in Tottenham. They were 100% set on leaving and going to Stratford and they were willing to do anything within reason to achieve it. It was more than an option, but the club were approaching the move very carefully as they knew (as anyone would know having considered it) that you couldn't simply announce an intention to move without pitching the benefits first. The club controlled the dialogue until we were involved.

The riots may well have had an impact, it's hard to know, but I know what the council position was, the riots only really galvanised the national government to do something it previously wasn't considering - putting money into Tottenham. The real letting factor was the decision on the Olympic stadium which we spent a long time, together with UKA trying to bring to the fore. Until then, there was a very real possibility that the OS would have gone to Tottenham, with Boris' influence.

I understand how things appeared on the outside watching it happen, but to be frank, public perception that Spurs didn't really want to go to Stratford or that it was some ploy to convince the council was our biggest issue. Daniel said to me, outright, that my actions and those of the people I was working with would be responsible for killing the club (if we got our way) - i.e. that remaining in Tottenham would lead to the end of Tottenham Hotspur. The council were with us in wanting to stay and doing anything they legally could to facilitate, it was a financial decision, pure and simple.

This is why I asked the question, because at this point I feel vindicated in my view that staying in Tottenham and building there was not only viable but the only real way the club should move forward and our sporting success depends on a great deal more than whether we are in Stratford or Tottenham.

Obviously not been as close events as you, but disagree with the bit in bold.

At the time as you said in a previous post, the council would have been happy to have Spurs stay in Tottenham but the planning laws at that time meant that no stadium development on the scale currently consented would have been possible.

So the decision was either to move or allow Spurs to fade away into a lower league club (think QPR, think Charlton, think Chelsea under Bates and prior to Hoddle etc).

So you shouldn't feel vindicated, more lucky that planning rules changed and the political landscape changed to support Spurs staying in Tottenham - coincidentally within months or maybe a year or two after your meeting with DL And it was those changes which made it possible for Spurs to build a new stadium in Tottenham

 

[Hoops]

I think it's really closer to "none of the above" . The £300m loan facility is going to cover a lot of the short term cash flow issues, but I think the other main source of capital is going to be an equity investor: they take a share of the asset value in exchange for a providing a share of the funding.

I doubt very much that Joe Lewis will personally fund any of it. His vehicle for funding projects is ENIC, of which he owns 70%, not his personal fortune.

The TV money is revenue funding, not capital funding. Indirectly, it's of benefit to the stadium development, because it enables us to trade at a profit and accumulated profit could eventually reduce our borrowing requirement for the NDP, but it isn't capital investment.

Does "sponsorship" mean naming rights? The last I read, that was also going to be negotiated as annual revenue, rather than a one-off capital injection into the project. A naming rights sponsor apparently won't want to tie up the money until they see the actual stadium. So I've read.

It's important to realise that about £100m of the project doesn't require funding, because it's already been paid for: the land, the design, the planning consent and Phase 1 (Lilywhite House).

There are really two questions here: as always with development, there is one question about short term cash flow and another question about long term viability.

The question being asked sounds as if it is about cash-funding the build. Phase 1 is already completed and Phase 2 will be largely covered by the £300m facility. Phase 3 doesn't even have detailed planning consent yet and I anticipate that it will largely be cash-flowed by residential- and hotel-development partners.

The second question is how the resulting shortfall will be converted to long term debt and whether servicing that debt will be sustainable for the club, given its footballing ambitions. That is unknown at present, for at least two major reasons: no one knows what interest rates will be in 3-4 years and, even more crucially, no one knows how much selling the housing will raise when it is finished.

No thats not right. If we needed equity investment we would have done it by now.

Theres no way Joe and Levy would want to share the spoils now since they have taken all the risk. If they sell, they sell the whole thing and realise the investment.

The new sky deal has pretty much covered the stadium as collateral for the bridging loan. The stadium in the long term will be paid for with debt, issued against future, Tv, gate, sponsorship and so on.

400m over 25 years isn't a great deal when you are likely to bring in 300m a year in revenue.

In layman terms, the rate of revenue growth in the PL has made what was a fairly risky project in 2007 a no brainer and almost risk free in 2016.

 

[Spursidol]

http://www.thstofficial.com/thst-news/thst-news-july-2016

3. White Hart Lane station redevelopment: meeting with Transport for London – 13 July THST Board member Michael Green and consultant, Bernie Kingsley, who is working with THST on transport issues, met with TfL on Wednesday 13 July to hear proposals for the redevelopment of White Hart Lane station. Finishing touches are being made to formal plans which will be submitted to Haringey Council soon.

The proposals involve the construction of a ticket hall with step-free access closer to the mid-section of the current platform with entrances on Love Lane and Penshurst Road. On Love Lane, this will involve the demolition of garages and the creation of new station forecourt. The most obvious improvement for Spurs fans is that each platform will be served by two new staircases, allowing faster access to and from the platforms as well as helping to ease congestion.

Love Lane and Penshurst Road will be connected by a link through the station and under the platforms constructed by opening up one of the railway arches. This link will be open before matches to allow quicker access from the northbound platform to the High Road but will be closed after the matches to ensure queues for each platform are kept separate.

This is expected to happen during our season away at Wembley with the station ready for our expected return to Tottenham in August 2018.

The station redevelopment is to be funded by the TfL Growth Fund and the GLA Mayor’s Regeneration Fund.

The progress of the plans and TfL’s willingness to share information and discuss it with THST is welcome. THST will continue to liaise with TfL, and will press in particular for the retained staircases to be used on match-days both before and after games to ease congestion, and to offer better access to existing businesses on White Hart Lane.

4. Stadium Community Liaison Group Meeting – 26 July

THST Coard member Martin Buhagiar attended this meeting where those present were given an update on the recent progress of the new stadium build and the on-going work in the North East corner at White Hart Lane.

It was confirmed that, once the season starts, supporters will be able to access the North Stand via the West Stand entrance like last season. Those who sit in the East Stand, coming from White Hart Lane station, will be advised to walk around the supermarket due to the new scaffolding staircase that has been erected for supporters to gain access to the east side of the North Upper.

The Club’s updated West Stand entrance in the new stadium build has been given planning permission.

A new planning application will be submitted shortly to cover a new section called the Northern Terrace regeneration.

Under these plans the listed buildings on the High Road, in front of Lilywhite House and Sainsbury’s, will be refurbished.

Members of the Trust Board are meeting with THFC on Tuesday 2 August to discuss access to the Lane for supporters this coming season and to go over the Northern Terrace plans in more depth. We’ll communicate details as soon as we can after this session.

 

[SandroClegane]

I'm sure this has been done to death so if someone can point me to a link or the page where it has this info, but how are we paying for this stadium?

Tv money?
sponsorship?
having little to no net spend over the past few years?
Change from Joe Lewis' backpocket?

All of the above?

We're paying for it with all the extra money the club is charging @yankspurs for overseas shipping.