New Stadium Update - Official Announcement

Rocksuperstar

just a child getting older...
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
41,730
#41
Considering we have, more than once, offered them far more than their business is worth, new premises and all that, i would hope that the club AND local council will now seek damages and compensation for the delays to the refurbishment of the area.

It's not only the stadium they are holding up, it's leaving the entire area as a wasteland, sitting in limbo. Once the work starts it'll bring so many things to the area, not to mention the potential jobs for both the building of and the running of, the entire project, that i feel that they have chosen to obstruct the entire thing, denying the area all of that.

Archway Steel should've accepted the bumper package they were offered instead of getting greedy.

In theory, i hate the idea of businesses being forced out by large corporations, but there's a huge difference between a Tesco's going up and an entire borough, the borough that has received less funding for improvements than virtually any other in London, getting a facelift and new facilities.
 

jezz

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2013
Messages
5,273
#42
Surely they would go bust if they lose?
Or is it a case of, if they lose they would be forced to move and accept spurs offer?
If they do lose, is there further appeals to the European court?
Personally I would have the marketing department in overdrive.
Regeneration stalled as Tottenham Hotspur look elsewhere.
 

Rocksuperstar

just a child getting older...
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
41,730
#44
Notice that we haven't done what Tesco and a thousand other land developers do though - we've not tried to bury the company in an avalanche of court action. We could, quite easily, put forward a crack team of a dozen incredibly expensive lawyers and tell them to prepare the most time consuming & in depth case they possibly can, then show Archway Steel what it will cost them to cover even a fraction of our legal expenses when they inevitably lose, from a case that they have bought.

The aggressive, out-price the competition approach works for them, but the club have continued to do it entirely by the book, not flexed muscle, just gone with it. I imagine it's costing us a f*cking fortune though in lost revenue.
 

parj

I ate all the pies
Joined
Jul 27, 2003
Messages
1,472
#45
Spurs are a team from Tottenham and should play in Tottenham, otherwise they would just become a brand with no real identity (like Manchester United). The new ground will be built and, importantly, will benefit Tottenham. Hopefully the area our club is from will get the sort of regeneration so far reserved for the Arsenal and West Ham heartlands. Archway are a disgrace and obviously have no concern for the place in which they are based. They will make money and I suppose that is all they are concerned with.
Whilst I agree with the sentiment, the future of the club is more important. If one party is refusing to sell then punish them by moving away and they lose the ridiculous amount of money that was on offer.

This will drag on for years and by then we risk be being even further behind the top 4 or 5. WHL is our home, but that shouldn't be the reason to stagnate the club.
 

prawnsandwich

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
6,035
#46
They are chancing their arm. If they thought they had a valid case why wait until the last minute for the appeal?
We are just unlucky. Arsenal moved sweet as a nut and we get grief.
But the question must be asked-is this a pride thing for Levy?
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
31,659
#47
They are chancing their arm. If they thought they had a valid case why wait until the last minute for the appeal?
We are just unlucky. Arsenal moved sweet as a nut and we get grief.
But the question must be asked-is this a pride thing for Levy?
Arsenal didn't move sweet as a nut. They went to the High Court as well.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-330852/Arsenal-lose-court-battle-new-stadium.html

Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott's decision to confirm a compulsory purchase order as part of the plan to build a new football stadium for Premiership champions Arsenal was attacked as "unlawful and improper" in the High Court today.
 

Rocksuperstar

just a child getting older...
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
41,730
#49
Couldn't we just change a few small details and build around them?
I suggested we simply raise the entire project onto stilts and turn the wasted land below/around Archway Steel into hard-standing for "travellers" (we all know, they love a bit of tin), or knock up a really high wall on all the land we do own, chuck one gate in it and charge them to cross our land.

The club just won't do the dastardly though, they are playing this straight as an arrow, from all that i've seen.
 

Rocksuperstar

just a child getting older...
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
41,730
#50
Considering the location of Archway Steel is almost where the centre circle would be for the new pitch, i wonder what they'd do if we went ahead and built the entire thing around them, refusing to discuss the situation until it's done, then start negotiations again, on lawn chairs, in the middle of a three-quarters full stadium.

Be fun :)
 

Yakflange

Active Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
667
#51
They have never been in Manchester, they are in Greater Manchester. Their council is Trafford whereas City's is Manchester Council. In no time in their over 100 years have they ever been in Manchester.
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say? Your original point was that Man U is a "brand with no identity" - what do you mean by that? Are you basing this solely on the fact that they call themselves Manchester but they're actually in Greater Manchester? You do know they called themselves Manchester over 100 years ago, when branding probably wasn't top of their list of priorities? Does every team have to be named after the council area they're in to make them authentic?
 

guiltyparty

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
8,021
#53
Considering the location of Archway Steel is almost where the centre circle would be for the new pitch, i wonder what they'd do if we went ahead and built the entire thing around them, refusing to discuss the situation until it's done, then start negotiations again, on lawn chairs, in the middle of a three-quarters full stadium.

Be fun :)
Pass the popcorn...
 

bigspurs

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Messages
2,791
#54
I don't wish to incite violence here, but FFS these guys are taking the piss!! Talk about stubborn. Maybe Levy has finally met his match!
 

Block D Spurs

Active Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2014
Messages
319
#55
Arsenal didn't move sweet as a nut. They went to the High Court as well.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-330852/Arsenal-lose-court-battle-new-stadium.html

Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott's decision to confirm a compulsory purchase order as part of the plan to build a new football stadium for Premiership champions Arsenal was attacked as "unlawful and improper" in the High Court today.
This seems like the reason Archway is holding out, for more money. However, Arsenal got their stadium, and we are even more involved in regeneration of the stadium area than they were. Harringey Council needs to do more on this.. David Lammy also. THFC needs to go on the front foot and their PR to vilify Archway for delaying the build, denying hundreds of local people jobs, and housing, THFC paying higher Business Rates, so helping Harringey Council services to the community etc..
 

klintheman

Active Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
810
#56
This is a very delicate situation that we and the club have to handle professionally and with the future of the metal works in mind.

Perhaps I'm looking at this slightly differently as I'm currently going through a similar thing (family business being forced out albeit by a large restaurant chain and not spurs)

I think the main difference here is the potential increase in jobs and oppurtunitys to the local area that spurs are offering unlike myself where it's get out & tough. I have not been offered compensation or a new location, I think this is the key.

We all have to remember the local business in this situation and not be blinded by a new stadium we all want so desperately. If the local community and spurs fans keep this in mind and support them rather than send some of the vile abuse I've noticed it really would help.

Perhaps the supporters can literally offer help to the business, send letters of support to them whilst also being truthful about the desire of the stadium.

Support the move and make it a positive for the business. They would benefit hugely from full spurs support and see what a difference to the area a stadium would make.

This all might sounds a bit loveydovey to some but you can more bees with honey and all that.

They don't want to move for whatever reasons and I can respect that, but it doesn't mean the move wouldn't be positive and benefit the company and it's brand, something we could help highlight

Just a thought COYS!!
 

Block D Spurs

Active Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2014
Messages
319
#57
This is a very delicate situation that we and the club have to handle professionally and with the future of the metal works in mind.

Perhaps I'm looking at this slightly differently as I'm currently going through a similar thing (family business being forced out albeit by a large restaurant chain and not spurs)

I think the main difference here is the potential increase in jobs and oppurtunitys to the local area that spurs are offering unlike myself where it's get out & tough. I have not been offered compensation or a new location, I think this is the key.

We all have to remember the local business in this situation and not be blinded by a new stadium we all want so desperately. If the local community and spurs fans keep this in mind and support them rather than send some of the vile abuse I've noticed it really would help.

Perhaps the supporters can literally offer help to the business, send letters of support to them whilst also being truthful about the desire of the stadium.

Support the move and make it a positive for the business. They would benefit hugely from full spurs support and see what a difference to the area a stadium would make.

This all might sounds a bit loveydovey to some but you can more bees with honey and all that.

They don't want to move for whatever reasons and I can respect that, but it doesn't mean the move wouldn't be positive and benefit the company and it's brand, something we could help highlight

Just a thought COYS!!
Sorry to hear of your situation. Yes i understand what you say, same as when the OS was planned and built, all the small business had to get out.... However if you look on all threads about this on here, there is one poster saying spurs offered a site to them.. 500 WHL? Bigger and better then they got already, with assistance to move. So why haven't they moved ??. Logical answer.. greedy for £'m more than their site is worth.
 

doom

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2003
Messages
2,307
#58
I'm sure Archway are just going as far as possible to extract as much compensation as they can get. Spurs are upping the ante - we'll see a deal soon I reckon.
 

Roberts84

Active Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2006
Messages
760
#59
Total frustration on my part and I fear that this could drag on for years to come. No telling what Archway are playing at, it seems to be more than money.
I think its time to draw a line in the sand and for Levy to do a deal with the FA and move lock, stock and barrell to Wembley.
I appreciate it is not White Hart Lane but financially it make sense with the increased capacity and therefore increased revenues. The infrastructure is already there and WHL to convert to housing.
Let Archway bear the full consequences of thier piggish behaviour.
We will not be able to play at Wembley due to the constraints by the council of limiting the number of events. We may be able to play one or two games but I doubt much more than that.
 

Roberts84

Active Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2006
Messages
760
#60
They have never been in Manchester, they are in Greater Manchester. Their council is Trafford whereas City's is Manchester Council. In no time in their over 100 years have they ever been in Manchester.
Utd played at Maine Road during the war for a couple of seasons.
 
Top