Spurs drop stadium legal bid

[AngerManagement]

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,,11675_7248348,00.html

Tottenham has dropped its legal action over the future of London's Olympic Stadium.

The move follows the collapse of the deal to award the stadium to West Ham after the London 2012 Games.

Tottenham and Leyton Orient both lodged complaints after West Ham initially won the tendering process to take control of the Olympic Stadium following next summer's games.

After growing concerns that a lengthy courtroom battle could leave the stadium empty for years, the OPLC came to an agreement with the government and Mayor of London Boris Johnson that the ground should remain in public ownership.

It is thought a legal hearing into the matter scheduled for Tuesday will now not take place.

West Ham have confirmed they will look to lease the Olympic Stadium, but it remains to be seen if Spurs would contemplate making a bid to do the same.

Spurs, who had wanted to remove the athletics track, are currently moving forward with plans to redevelop White Hart Lane.

legal action dropped very shortly after West Ham's take over deal collapsed

 

[mattyspurs]

Interesting

 

[$hoguN]

Interesting

Not until it is on our official site it is not :razz:

 

[mattyspurs]

Not until it is on our official site it is not :razz:

thats why it's interesting, as it's not on there yet

 

[markiespurs]

Come on Levy, announce that we've dropped all legal action and intrest in the OS whille also announcing the official go ahead for the NDP ray:

 

[$hoguN]

We are still waiting on a Spurs announcement but BBC are reporting this too

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15344523

Tottenham Hotspur ends 2012 Olympic Stadium legal bid

The Olympic Park will be renamed the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park in 2013
Tottenham Hotspur has withdrawn its bid for a judicial review into the handing of the Olympic Stadium to West Ham, the government has said.

The move follows the collapse of the deal to award the stadium to West Ham after the London 2012 Games.

The Olympic Park Legacy Company (OPLC) blamed the collapse on delays caused by the legal dispute with Tottenham.

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) confirmed the latest move. Tottenham is yet to comment.

It is thought a legal hearing into the matter scheduled for Tuesday will not now take place.

A DCMS spokeswoman said: "We have come to an agreement with Tottenham Hotspur, where all parties will bear their own legal costs."

The OPLC, government and mayor of London currently agree the stadium will remain in public ownership.

West Ham has said it will bid to be the stadium tenant.

The OPLC has been asked to start a new process to secure tenants for the stadium and any interested bidders will have to submit proposals by January.

A fund of £35m has been set aside from public money to convert the stadium, which will have an 80,000-capacity during the Games, to a 60,000-seater venue afterwards.

Leyton Orient has also been challenging the award of the stadium in the courts. It has also withdrawn its bid for judicial review.

'Whole process flawed'
The club is afraid West Ham moving to the stadium would affect numbers attending matches at its nearby ground.

Chairman Barry Hearn said on Monday: "The whole process has been flawed. The last four or five years has been largely wasted and we have to go back to the beginning.

"If the OPLC try to fast track the whole process they will be challenged again.

"Someone has to convince me how Leyton Orient, with its history in east London, can keep in existence."

 

[RichSpur58]

There isnt much grounds to sue if it stays in publc ownership

 

[$hoguN]

There isnt much grounds to sue if it stays in publc ownership

We were challenging the process overall. So I don't think them now back tracking on their original decision will stop us suing. It will be the overall package offered in order to make our new stadium more viable which will stop us suing.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

There isnt much grounds to sue if it stays in publc ownership

Surely inviting clubs to spend hundreds of thousands on a tendering process to effectively purchase the site, only to then subsequently announce that it will not be sold is pretty good grounds isn't it ?

 

[$hoguN]

Surely inviting clubs to spend hundreds of thousands on a tendering process to effectively purchase the site, only to then subsequently announce that it will not be sold is pretty good grounds isn't it ?

You would think

 

[phil]

Surely inviting clubs to spend hundreds of thousands on a tendering process to effectively purchase the site, only to then subsequently announce that it will not be sold is pretty good grounds isn't it ?

Doubt if we have any grounds.

The judicial review was into the Newham Council process for approving the loan. Even if we had got a decision in our favour (which I think was possible), it would have just put the bidding process back to square one. We may have had a case against the council but that would have been on flimsy grounds.

When you enter a bid for a contract like this there will be contractual conditions that make it impossible for the tenderers to get redress if the seller changes the rules. The fact is that we failed to meet two of the basic conditions for buying the stadium and no amount of legal manoeuvering is going to change these facts.

Whilst the OPLC was determined to sell the stadium, it was worth continuing with our legal challenge. Once they decided on renting the stadium, it was a waste of time.

 

[spud]

The fact is that we failed to meet two of the basic conditions for buying the stadium and no amount of legal manoeuvering is going to change these facts.

I'm no expert on whether we would still have an actionable claim, but I do dispute these 'facts'.

The commitment - and the bid criterion - was for an 'athletics legacy'. We bid on the (assured) basis that such a legacy meant providing a permanent home for athletics in a refurbished stadium; thus our bid included Crystal Palace. It is only since our bid was announced that this legacy came to mean a track in the Olympic Stadium.

I don't know what other 'fact' you refer to, but am willing to bet that we met that criterion too.

 

[Wellspurs]

I'm no expert on whether we would still have an actionable claim, but I do dispute these 'facts'.

The commitment - and the bid criterion - was for an 'athletics legacy'. We bid on the (assured) basis that such a legacy meant providing a permanent home for athletics in a refurbished stadium; thus our bid included Crystal Palace. It is only since our bid was announced that this legacy came to mean a track in the Olympic Stadium.

I don't know what other 'fact' you refer to, but am willing to bet that we met that criterion too.

You have hit the nail on the head- We were encouraged to bid even though we made it clear from the start we would not retain the running track. We were brought into the process purely to put pressure on Spammers.

 

[SpurSince57]

I'm no expert on whether we would still have an actionable claim, but I do dispute these 'facts'.

The commitment - and the bid criterion - was for an 'athletics legacy'. We bid on the (assured) basis that such a legacy meant providing a permanent home for athletics in a refurbished stadium; thus our bid included Crystal Palace. It is only since our bid was announced that this legacy came to mean a track in the Olympic Stadium.

I don't know what other 'fact' you refer to, but am willing to bet that we met that criterion too.

Really? And you have evidence for this?

 

[Real_madyidd]

Really? And you have evidence for this?

It's common knowledge that the criteria changed after bids were submitted. Been reported in multiple places. The criteria was a legacy, it became location specific.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Doubt if we have any grounds.

The judicial review was into the Newham Council process for approving the loan. Even if we had got a decision in our favour (which I think was possible), it would have just put the bidding process back to square one. We may have had a case against the council but that would have been on flimsy grounds.

When you enter a bid for a contract like this there will be contractual conditions that make it impossible for the tenderers to get redress if the seller changes the rules. The fact is that we failed to meet two of the basic conditions for buying the stadium and no amount of legal manoeuvering is going to change these facts.

Whilst the OPLC was determined to sell the stadium, it was worth continuing with our legal challenge. Once they decided on renting the stadium, it was a waste of time.

That may be the case, I honestly have no idea, but why would we pursue a case we knew we could not win - ie: if it was actually set in the contract that all bids must contain a stadium that retains it's running track. And if that was the case, do you really think that someone as level headed as Levy would have wasted so much time and money on a bid that didn't stick to the written covenants ?

 

[SpurSince57]

It's common knowledge that the criteria changed after bids were submitted. Been reported in multiple places. The criteria was a legacy, it became location specific.

It's a common assumption on the part of those with ultra-strength Spurs-Tints, you mean. True, keeping the track wasn't one of the stated criteria when bids were invited, but was that because it was so obvious that it didn't need stating? Most Londoners appeared to feel that way if the opinion polls were anything to go by.

Let's just recap.

The original idea was for a 25,000-seat athletics stadium, possibly with other uses (20-20 cricket, rugby, NFL). This was the reason that removable seating as at the Stade de France was never contemplated. It was only after the 2010 election that the Coalition and BoJo decided to bring in a Premier League club, but by then it was far too late to alter the design to include the removable seating. Someone may have assumed the legacy did not involve retention of the running track, but I don't think the athletics lobby saw it this way for a moment, and whilst you will be absolutely correct in saying that the athletics lobby in general and Lord Coe in particular inhabit a fantasy world in which their sport never struggles to get its attendances into five-figures, it's hardly fair to take their assent for granted, which is what appears to have happened.

I seem to recall reading that on top of the listed criteria there was a prerequisite that the solution should either support London bid's commitment to athletics, or be a credible alternative. Did anyone really think that athletics would be happy with sloppy seconds in the form of a tarting-up of crappy old Crystal Palace? Did Levy ever take the trouble to sound them out about this?

Our alternative was clearly neither credible nor acceptable.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

It's a common assumption on the part of those with ultra-strength Spurs-Tints, you mean. True, keeping the track wasn't one of the stated criteria when bids were invited, but was that because it was so obvious that it didn't need stating? Most Londoners appeared to feel that way if the opinion polls were anything to go by.

Let's just recap.

The original idea was for a 25,000-seat athletics stadium, possibly with other uses (20-20 cricket, rugby, NFL). This was the reason that removable seating as at the Stade de France was never contemplated. It was only after the 2010 election that the Coalition and BoJo decided to bring in a Premier League club, but by then it was far too late to alter the design to include the removable seating. Someone may have assumed the legacy did not involve retention of the running track, but I don't think the athletics lobby saw it this way for a moment, and whilst you will be absolutely correct in saying that the athletics lobby in general and Lord Coe in particular inhabit a fantasy world in which their sport never struggles to get its attendances into five-figures, it's hardly fair to take their assent for granted, which is what appears to have happened.

I seem to recall reading that on top of the listed criteria there was a prerequisite that the solution should either support London bid's commitment to athletics, or be a credible alternative. Did anyone really think that athletics would be happy with sloppy seconds in the form of a tarting-up of crappy old Crystal Palace? Did Levy ever take the trouble to sound them out about this?

Our alternative was clearly neither credible nor acceptable.

It was certainly credible, just not acceptable. What's not credible about offering to completely upgrade the existing home of UK Athletics, save the tax payer millions - compared to the other bid - and was the bid that would have seen the greatest use made of the stadium and the new transport infrastructure - ie more fee paying transport customers week after week for the foreseeable future.

 

[spud]

True, keeping the track wasn't one of the stated criteria when bids were invited, but was that because it was so obvious that it didn't need stating? Most Londoners appeared to feel that way if the opinion polls were anything to go by.

When you are tendering for a multi-million pound asset, you adhere to the stated criteria of the tender. If - as you concede - keeping the track wasn't a stated criterion, then a successful bid did not have to include a track in the stadium. Whether or not some thought it 'obvious' that there should be one.

If I recall correctly (and I have to go on recollection as any published evidence of the criteria were long ago removed from public view) the criterion in question was for an athletics legacy. It would be churlish to suggest that the Spurs bid did not fulfill that requirement.

I seem to recall reading that on top of the listed criteria there was a prerequisite that the solution should either support London bid's commitment to athletics, or be a credible alternative. Did anyone really think that athletics would be happy with sloppy seconds in the form of a tarting-up of crappy old Crystal Palace? Did Levy ever take the trouble to sound them out about this?

With respect, SS57, the views of Coe or the athletics fraternity were, or should have been, totally irrelevant. Once the tender criteria are established, opinions of interest groups (who should be consulted in the process of establishing the criteria) cease to matter. We are led to believe that Levy was assured that the removal of the track would not hamper our bid. This, again, is irrelevant. If the criteria did not insist on the retention of the track, it is not necessary to include it - as long as the 'athletics legacy' criterion is otherwise satisfied.

I concede that we live in the real world, and that opinions and interest groups have influence on these things. But when you adhere not only to the letter but also to the spirit of the tender criteria, then the fact that your bid is defeated because of the emotional posturing of these groups must lead to a sense of injustice. Spurs-tinted glasses or not.

 

[ethanedwards]

When you are tendering for a multi-million pound asset, you adhere to the stated criteria of the tender. If - as you concede - keeping the track wasn't a stated criterion, then a successful bid did not have to include a track in the stadium. Whether or not some thought it 'obvious' that there should be one.

If I recall correctly (and I have to go on recollection as any published evidence of the criteria were long ago removed from public view) the criterion in question was for an athletics legacy. It would be churlish to suggest that the Spurs bid did not fulfill that requirement.


With respect, SS57, the views of Coe or the athletics fraternity were, or should have been, totally irrelevant. Once the tender criteria are established, opinions of interest groups (who should be consulted in the process of establishing the criteria) cease to matter. We are led to believe that Levy was assured that the removal of the track would not hamper our bid. This, again, is irrelevant. If the criteria did not insist on the retention of the track, it is not necessary to include it - as long as the 'athletics legacy' criterion is otherwise satisfied.

I concede that we live in the real world, and that opinions and interest groups have influence on these things. But when you adhere not only to the letter but also to the spirit of the tender criteria, then the fact that your bid is defeated because of the emotional posturing of these groups must lead to a sense of injustice. Spurs-tinted glasses or not.

Spot on.
I believe it was the mass hysteria whipped up by Coe and friends when they realised that our bid looked the best, and the impact it may have had on their ambitions.