Tottenham's bid for judicial review of Olympic Stadium decision rejected

Joined
Jun 28, 2011
Messages
971
#41
Here we go, our appeal will cost the economy £100m. You don't need to be Rumpole of the Bailey to see which way the wind's blowing on this one...

The sports minister has urged Tottenham Hotspur to abandon legal action over the future of the Olympic Stadium, warning that London's bid to host the 2017 World Athletics Championships will be dead in the water unless the matter can be resolved soon.

Hugh Robertson said that unless the future of the stadium, awarded to West Ham by the Olympic Park Legacy Company but the subject of an ongoing legal challenge from Spurs, was decided by 1 September then the bid would have to be withdrawn.

"I would hope Tottenham would see the greater good to London, maybe it's a fond hope. The initial economic planning tells us it will be a £100m boost from hosting a World Athletics Championship," said Robertson. "I hope anyone involved in sport would see the greater good, whatever their feelings about the stadium process."

The timetable is tight because Robertson, mindful of previous embarrassments, is unwilling to commit to the bid unless the stadium's future is legally watertight. "I want to be ambitious for British sport and want my time as a minister of sport to be a time when British sport is leading the world. A bid for a World Athletics Championship is a really important legacy from 2012," said Robertson. "I find it frustrating that having been through the process we are now being dragged through the high court, having won the first round we have the appeal to come. If we win that we will bid, but I will not let the country bid if we have not got a locked-down secure venue, given the backdrop of previous bids."

A high court judge initially dismissed applications for judicial review of the OPLC decision from Leyton Orient and Spurs, but the north London club has requested an oral hearing. It expects it to be heard before the end of July but no court date has yet been fixed.

"We are caught between the court timetables and the IAAF timetable. We need to confirm a bid by 1 September. The key thing is if we can get Tottenham Hotspur's and Leyton Orient's appeal through the high court and, I would say, dismissed," said Robertson.

"We're in the queue and we don't have a date. If the high court is not settled we don't have a secure venue. That would make it very difficult to bid. It's not only reputation, it's unlikely the IAAF would look favourably."

The World Athletics Championships were due to be held in London in 2005, but had to be handed back after the construction of a promised new stadium at Picketts Lock foundered.

A bid was also considered for 2015, but had to be postponed with the Olympic Stadium's future not yet decided. Other countries, including Qatar, have since thrown their hat in the ring for 2017.

The World Championships are the only athletics event that would be guaranteed to fill the stadium after the Games, when West Ham propose to convert it into a 60,000-capacity mixed-use venue with a running track.

In the meantime, West Ham and the OPLC have also been embarrassed by the revelation that one of the legacy body's directors was conducting paid consultancy work for the east London club during the bidding process.

Both sides have launched internal reviews and insist that it had no impact on the outcome of the bidding process.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/jul/12/hugh-robertson-olympic-stadium-tottenham
Well then, we can't bid until Wham sign a binding contract with OPLC, regardless of any judicial review.
 

Legacy

SC Supporter
Joined
Mar 29, 2007
Messages
2,241
#43
Maybe, but they're the only ones who can provide him with a stadium for the athletic's world championship, so he's obviously going to take their side.
Didn't our bid include the development of a dedicated athletics stadium with 25,000 seats, capable of being expanded to around 40,000 seats for major tournaments?
 
Joined
Jul 23, 2010
Messages
225
#44
I'm not entirely sure what we will gain from all of this hassle.

Surely it is more of a viable option for us to pursue the NDP, especially with the re-generation.
 

talkshowhost86

Mod-Moose
Staff
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Messages
44,893
#45
I'm not entirely sure what we will gain from all of this hassle.

Surely it is more of a viable option for us to pursue the NDP, especially with the re-generation.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. We can pursue the NDP whilst also following up on the dodgy process that appears to have been followed for the Olympic Stadium.

There are two reasons to pursue our JR against the decision.

1. The process seems to have been fundamentally flawed with the goalposts being moved, people involved having bias towards West Ham and ending with a decision which required further public money over and above what everyone has already paid for the Olympic Stadium. The OPLC shouldn't be allowed to get away with what could amount to an abuse of their duties.

2. By continuing to pursue the Olympic Stadium we put increased pressure on the various parties involved to help us go ahead with the NDP. If we get that all sorted, maybe we'll leave well alone with the OS. It is arguable that this is already working with Boris backing us for funds for the area and with the World Championship bods now begging us to stop that gives us even more leverage.

I'll leave you to decide which of the above factors is the driving factor behind our continuing actions on the OS :grin:
 
Joined
Jun 28, 2011
Messages
971
#46
The two aren't mutually exclusive. We can pursue the NDP whilst also following up on the dodgy process that appears to have been followed for the Olympic Stadium.

There are two reasons to pursue our JR against the decision.

1. The process seems to have been fundamentally flawed with the goalposts being moved, people involved having bias towards West Ham and ending with a decision which required further public money over and above what everyone has already paid for the Olympic Stadium. The OPLC shouldn't be allowed to get away with what could amount to an abuse of their duties.

2. By continuing to pursue the Olympic Stadium we put increased pressure on the various parties involved to help us go ahead with the NDP. If we get that all sorted, maybe we'll leave well alone with the OS. It is arguable that this is already working with Boris backing us for funds for the area and with the World Championship bods now begging us to stop that gives us even more leverage.

I'll leave you to decide which of the above factors is the driving factor behind our continuing actions on the OS :grin:
I also think we are doing OPLC a bit of a favour here - as soon as we pull out and commit to the NPD, Wham are left as SOLE bidders for the OS and can drive whatever bargain they want. While we are still sniffing around we keep them honest.
 

bigturnip

Tottenham till I die, Stratford over my dead body
Joined
Oct 8, 2004
Messages
1,640
#47
Didn't our bid include the development of a dedicated athletics stadium with 25,000 seats, capable of being expanded to around 40,000 seats for major tournaments?
There are two problems with this, firstly neither Spurs nor the OPLC own Crystal Palace Stadium, so any plans Spurs have to redevelop it would be purely speculative based on their ability to acquire the land and buy GLL out of their management contract for the stadium. Crystal Palace have also consistently maintained that they will return there and build a new stadium, the council would surely prefer a tenant who could build a bigger and more widely used stadium.

Secondly 40,000 is the bare minimum required for an Athletics World Championship, when you look at the more usual stadia used they are often double this, the OS would be a far more attractive proposition to the IAAF than CPS, plus after the fiasco of Pickett's Lock would they really take a gamble on another project that isn't even on the drawing board yet?
 

Dokta-D

Dr. Tottenham will see you now
Joined
Jul 16, 2011
Messages
81
#51
when will we find out the date for our appealed review ? Is it meant to be imminent or a wks/months away ?
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
32,640
#52
Heard October somewhere. Don't quote me on that as I take drugs. The MP's are trying to get it rushed through in order to go for the 2017 Athletics championships so may hear something soon.
 

Dokta-D

Dr. Tottenham will see you now
Joined
Jul 16, 2011
Messages
81
#53
thanks lilbaz. Would i be right in thinking that if they dont get a decision by september they cant bid for the wc 2017? And if they do push it through would you think they're confident of getting it thrown out?
 

michaelden

Knight of the Fat Fanny
Joined
Aug 13, 2004
Messages
20,666
#54
the MPs comments the other day sounded like a stitch up, "the best result is to go to court early and have THFC's & LO's appeals quashed" ... or to that effect. He might as well have come out and said political pressure on the courts dictates....
 

bigturnip

Tottenham till I die, Stratford over my dead body
Joined
Oct 8, 2004
Messages
1,640
#55
the MPs comments the other day sounded like a stitch up, "the best result is to go to court early and have THFC's & LO's appeals quashed" ... or to that effect. He might as well have come out and said political pressure on the courts dictates....
One of the great things about our legal system is that we have an independent judiciary, and it's one that likes to remind governments of this fact whenever the opportunity arises.
 

bigturnip

Tottenham till I die, Stratford over my dead body
Joined
Oct 8, 2004
Messages
1,640
#56
thanks lilbaz. Would i be right in thinking that if they dont get a decision by september they cant bid for the wc 2017? And if they do push it through would you think they're confident of getting it thrown out?
You're right that the deadline for bids is September, but they can still bid without a decision.
 
Top