NEW STADIUM DEVELOPMENT - CLARIFICATION

[Mattspur]

The stadium redevelopment plans are a significant part of the future for both our Club and the local area and represent a complex infrastructure project that requires funding.

Article goes on to say that they are not looking to sell the club.

Read the full article at Official Site

 

[Gaz_Gammon]

Good news, and should end any red top speculation.

 

[DEFchenkOE]

All the hold ups are just so frustrating though.

Just watched the video again of Man C's new £200m training complex and I can't help wondering that if we had some rich dude just chucking money at it we'd be moving into our new stadium in no time. When those sheikh dudes want something to get done it gets done!

 

[wakefieldyid]

Just watched the video again of Man C's new £200m training complex and I can't help wondering that if we had some rich dude just chucking money at it we'd be moving into our new stadium in no time.

Clearly, someone saw those arabs coming. £200 million could have bought them an awful lot more than a scabby piece of contaminated land in the heart of Manchester's Bandit country.

 

[gusrowe]

I am really surprised the funding is not already in place.I also feel that if a really good offer is put on the table Spurs will be sold. If so I trust it is to someone with the development of Spurs at heart.

 

[Smokinhotspur]

All the hold ups are just so frustrating though.

Just watched the video again of Man C's new £200m training complex and I can't help wondering that if we had some rich dude just chucking money at it we'd be moving into our new stadium in no time. When those sheikh dudes want something to get done it gets done!

Exactly. How is it that the issue with Archway has been allowed to get this far? We should have blown them out of the water with an offer they could not refuse early on in the process but instead it dragged on and been allowed to snowball into the bitter wrangle it has now become. Reminds me of one of our protracted transfers! I am sure by the time we count the cost of all these delays, unnecessary flirting with the Olympic stadium bid, it is probably over 10 times what we would have needed to give Archway!

 

[DEFchenkOE]

Exactly. How is it that the issue with Archway has been allowed to get this far? We should have blown them out of the water with an offer they could not refuse early on in the process but instead it dragged on and been allowed to snowball into the bitter wrangle it has now become. Reminds me of one of our protracted transfers! I am sure by the time we count the cost of all these delays, unnecessary flirting with the Olympic stadium bid, it is probably over 10 times what we would have needed to give Archway!

Yep, I can understand DL not wanting to pay ott but when it causes a hold up like this just get it resolved asap.

 

[DEFchenkOE]

Clearly, someone saw those arabs coming. £200 million could have bought them an awful lot more than a scabby piece of contaminated land in the heart of Manchester's Bandit country.

The facility they have looks incredible, and they're probably not even bothered about the cost.

 

[ERO]

Yep, I can understand DL not wanting to pay ott but when it causes a hold up like this just get it resolved asap.

We don't really know all what's going on.

If I owned some land, and agreed to sell to someone buying up all the land, I would do my best to make sure my neighbour didn't get twice as much as me for half the land. If such clauses exists in any form, paying ott to Archway might have a ripple effect much bigger than just the one payment.

(I don't know if this is likely or even legal, but it's just something I would've wanted to put in a contract in such a scenario.)

 

[zepstar]

You have to give it to Tottenham, they are staying true to their word and being more open, transparent, and communicative with the fans and the public.

This sort of statement wouldn't have been made a year ago. Look how much better we all feel having heard from the club within hours of erroneous speculations.

 

[ginola007]

All the hold ups are just so frustrating though.

Just watched the video again of Man C's new £200m training complex and I can't help wondering that if we had some rich dude just chucking money at it we'd be moving into our new stadium in no time. When those sheikh dudes want something to get done it gets done!

Don't think those sheikh dudes would want to have anything to do with us yids.

 

[18Klinsmann]

Never really fancied the idea of a sugar daddy. Modern day football has become big and dirty business and the beautiful game is all but gone and all that.
I have to admit, however, that the idea is growing on me.
We had a shot at glory with the amazing team we had a couple of seasons ago, but missed out on the next level of CL football by a whisker (I know...don't mention the war...).
From where we are standing now - which is not bad at all by the way - the only way onward and upwards is a bigger stadium. Without the funds and the extra money to improve the squad along the way competing against the richest CL teams seems quite hopeless. Hopefully a filthy rich football fanatic with a soft spot for our club and what it stands for will come in now that Lewis has decided to cash in. I for one will welcome him, unless it means playing in red in Asia or something ridiculous like that. If it gets us a new stadium and a serious challenge for the top spots in the PL I'm all for a filthy rich new owner as long as we get to keep our identity and a bit of dignity.

New car, caviar, four-star daydream - think I'll buy me a football team...

 

[vigospur]

Exactly. How is it that the issue with Archway has been allowed to get this far? We should have blown them out of the water with an offer they could not refuse early on in the process but instead it dragged on and been allowed to snowball into the bitter wrangle it has now become. Reminds me of one of our protracted transfers! I am sure by the time we count the cost of all these delays, unnecessary flirting with the Olympic stadium bid, it is probably over 10 times what we would have needed to give Archway!

Are you saying that the Club should have massively overpaid every other individual and business they have settled with?

 

[davidmatzdorf]

We don't really know all what's going on.

If I owned some land, and agreed to sell to someone buying up all the land, I would do my best to make sure my neighbour didn't get twice as much as me for half the land. If such clauses exist in any form, paying ott to Archway might have a ripple effect much bigger than just the one payment.

(I don't know if this is likely or even legal, but it's just something I would've wanted to put in a contract in such a scenario.)

There is no realistic possibility that Paul Kemsley, who headed the negotiations over land acquisitions, would have permitted such a clause to be inserted in any of the other contracts of sale. At the time when the land was assembled, there was no planning consent - not even a planning application in most cases - and there was no regeneration project. The land was worth its value 'at existing use', because here was little or nothing on which the vendor could base added 'hope value'.

There is no mechanism in law that would permit someone who sells land at an agreed price by private treaty to come back later and complain that the agreed price was too low and they want another wad of cash. There would have to be an 'overage' clause in the contract of sale and such a clause would usually be linked to the added value of any subsequent planning consent. Such contracts are common enough when someone sells (say) a scaffolding yard to a residential property developer, in the knowledge that the local planning policy might permit a residential development. The developer takes the risk and bears the cost of the planning consent and, if a residential consent is obtained, then the original owner would get a share of the added value - but only a share - which is called 'overage' and is usually linked to the number of dwellings in the consent.

But Kemsley is a hard-nosed, quite ruthless operator. All of the other acquisitions would have been outright purchases, with no later comeback if land values escalated. He just wouldn't have done it. I used to work with a couple of chaps who worked for him at the same time, which was also the time when the land acquisitions were being quietly done for what later became the NDP, and I know a bit about how his business ('Rock Investments') was set up. I'm sure he bought the land at low valuations and not subject to planning consent or to later revaluation.

 

[Smokinhotspur]

Are you saying that the Club should have massively overpaid every other individual and business they have settled with?

No. I am no expert in these things but presume we settled each individual case by case with no provision for comebacks so what I am saying is we should have overpaid for one stubborn bugger if we really had to.

My view is obviously from where most stand which is not knowing all the ins and outs although also influenced by my observation of us being a dithering sort of club. How is it that us and the gooners were looking at the potential for new stadiums at round about the same sort of time and theirs is now finished and fully paid off whilst we are still piddling about with CPOs and high court cases without a spade in the ground to date?!

 

[scottlag10]

The stadium redevelopment plans are a significant part of the future for both our Club and the local area and represent a complex infrastructure project that requires funding.

Article goes on to say that they are not looking to sell the club.

Read the full article at Official Site

Will the local businesses on the Tottenham High road, many of which are food and drink sales based and will I imagine have a significant financial loss if Spurs move away for a year, blame Spurs or Archway?

 

[Rupstoh]

There is no realistic possibility that Paul Kemsley, who headed the negotiations over land acquisitions, would have permitted such a clause to be inserted in any of the other contracts of sale. At the time when the land was assembled, there was no planning consent - not even a planning application in most cases - and there was no regeneration project. The land was worth its value 'at existing use', because here was little or nothing on which the vendor could base added 'hope value'.

There is no mechanism in law that would permit someone who sells land at an agreed price by private treaty to come back later and complain that the agreed price was too low and they want another wad of cash. There would have to be an 'overage' clause in the contract of sale and such a clause would usually be linked to the added value of any subsequent planning consent. Such contracts are common enough when someone sells (say) a scaffolding yard to a residential property developer, in the knowledge that the local planning policy might permit a residential development. The developer takes the risk and bears the cost of the planning consent and, if a residential consent is obtained, then the original owner would get a share of the added value - but only a share - which is called 'overage' and is usually linked to the number of dwellings in the consent.

But Kemsley is a hard-nosed, quite ruthless operator. All of the other acquisitions would have been outright purchases, with no later comeback if land values escalated. He just wouldn't have done it. I used to work with a couple of chaps who worked for him at the same time, which was also the time when the land acquisitions were being quietly done for what later became the NDP, and I know a bit about how his business ('Rock Investments') was set up. I'm sure he bought the land at low valuations and not subject to planning consent or to later revaluation.

____________________

The same Paul Kemsley who is very good friends with Mike Ashley, who, this week, has announced that he is looking for a buyer for Newcastle Utd FC (which is debt free)?

 

[davidmatzdorf]

No. I am no expert in these things but presume we settled each individual case by case with no provision for comebacks so what I am saying is we should have overpaid for one stubborn bugger if we really had to.

But that's a reason not to 'overpay for one stupid bugger'. The other buggers would inevitably have found out and the whole land assembly would have gone down the toilet.

Anyway, one doesn't know which one is a 'stupid bugger' until you've spent 3-4 years being pissed around by them. Everyone tries to cut a hard deal and you only find out who is a total arsehole when you've done 69 difficult, fraught deals and the 70th is still ... well ... being an arsehole.

My view is obviously from where most stand which is not knowing all the ins and outs although also influenced by my observation of us being a dithering sort of club. How is it that us and the gooners were looking at the potential for new stadiums at round about the same sort of time and theirs is now finished and fully paid off whilst we are still piddling about with CPOs and high court cases without a spade in the ground to date?!

This is all utter nonsense. 'Dithering' is the very last word I would apply to Paul Kemsley and Daniel Levy. Your depiction of the way the club works in these deals is just complete fantasy.

And the business about Arsenal (as I posted in detail yesterday on the big stadium thread) is also bunk. Arsenal had an absolute nightmare doing their land assembly, much worse than ours, followed by a major wrangle getting planning consent. They were held to ransom by multiple landowners, not one, ansd then they faced organised and hostile local opposition when they tried to get planning consent.

They started many years before we did - I can't recall how many for certain, but about 7-9 years before us, I would reckon. They had the benefit of a property boom and the banking crisis came at the end of their development, not right at the start.

It took years for them to put together enough land to merit a planning application, but Spurs fans wouldn't be aware of any of that, so they tend to clock the Emirates development from the time the planning application hit the news. AFC had been at it for at least 2 years by then (possibly longer). I live in Islington, 500m from the Emirates. I saw it all happen and watched the local politics unfold.