What's new

West Ham Olympic Bid Collapses

SpurSince57

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2006
45,213
8,229
According to the bid process, West Ham were preferred bidders. If they could not meet their obligations then we (as runners up) were to take over. West Ham could not meet their obligations (i don't care what they say about legal wranglings taking years blah blah) but instead of taking over, the bidding process is to be re-run with changes so that WH can take over.

The cost of the stadium itself is £80m, the cost of the land/infrasturcture etc... came to £600m by reports (and Golds own words). Land and infrastructure are already in place at CP, but you know this, you are just trying to be argumentative as usual.

That's somewhat analogous to your being turned down for a job because you're insufficiently qualified, then finding the better-qualified bloke who got it has pulled out and saying, 'Can I have it, then?' The answer remains 'No', because you're still insufficiently qualified.

As far as I'm concerned Levy has no business whatsoever digging the government and OPLC out of a hole of their own making.
 

SpurSince57

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2006
45,213
8,229
Make the Tottenham area an economic zone or whatever they call it so companies moving into the area get tax breaks. Invest in infastructure (£17 million so far) put pressure on for Spurs to get the regeneration cash we bid for, agree to help towards the cost of housing (or give us a treasury loan at preferential rates ala Wet Spam) and let us build the number of houses we originally wanted. Assist with putting in a bid for European money for a major regeneration project in the area other than the stadium. Simplez.

Then we can agree to build NDP.

So they can be sold off on the cheap to the buy-to-rent sector, because no-one else will want them. Brilliant.
 

Gedi

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2004
505
446
May change though. The OPLC are meeting with Ministers today to explain this mess...

Haven't read about that but senior OPLC figures will be called before the Public Accounts Committee on Dec 14th. By then the host city for the 2017 World Athletics Championships will be known and the National Audit Office will also have publised a value-for-money review of the Olympics. I think if London gets the WAC then the OPLC & Gov't would at least have some arguements in their favour to justify the continued use of public money & the retention of the track, if it goes to Doha then I wouldn't be at all surprised if another new revised tendering process is announced. Yesterdays revisions has bought them some time to go to the November IAAF vote not on the back of losing a Judicial Review as looked likely.
 

Spurs1960

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2011
2,424
1,220
So they can be sold off on the cheap to the buy-to-rent sector, because no-one else will want them. Brilliant.

The government assisted Arsenal with the building of their homes and retained ownership, why should we not get a similar deal.
 

SpurSince57

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2006
45,213
8,229
The government assisted Arsenal with the building of their homes and retained ownership, why should we not get a similar deal.

They did? Perhaps you could produce some evidence for this statement. Or is it just something that 'everyone knows'?
 

brasil_spur

SC Supporter
Aug 25, 2006
12,669
16,715
now this has collapsed and we may win the stadium by tender, but hopefully it looks like wet spam will just win it back anyway. either way, a lot of money lost in law suits and less money to come back to us for the WHL new stadium.

I'm not picking on you here, but i wish everyone would chill out about us spending loads of money on law suits.

If you had a team of 5 lawyers working full time on this for a year it would run to around 10,000 man hours a year, and say you're paying some good lawyers that are billing out at £300 per hour on a large style contract like this, you're net spend on lawyers fees for the years is £2.4m, call it another 600k of additional costs and you're at £3m per year.

That's about what we were paying Jonathon Woodgate to sit on the bench all season last year.

And that's IF we are spending that much on lawyers, which i doubt.

Quite honestly even if we are, and we are spending on them at this rate for two years and we come up at £6m under budget for the stadium, i'm pretty sure we can raise the extra capital by selling someone like Gomes and seeing no real impact to our on pitch performance.

Yes lawyers cost a lot of money, but not in the context of running a successful football club the size of spurs and certainly not if we are pursuing a law suit where we are in the right, we will make back all, if not a large chunk, if not possibly more than we spend out by doing this.

Plus someone's got to keep the Stoof's of this world in employment :wink:
 

3Dnata

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2008
5,879
1,345
I'd hate it for us to end up in a Stadium with a running track.
Looks like the OS is going to be a white elephant.
 

spud

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2003
5,850
8,794
They did? Perhaps you could produce some evidence for this statement. Or is it just something that 'everyone knows'?
I'm not sure about assistance for house building, but the TFL site has an archived article proclaiming its support of the project at Cashburden Grove with £50 million of infrastructure improvements.
 

Real_madyidd

The best username, unless you are a fucking idiot.
Oct 25, 2004
18,792
12,448
I'd hate it for us to end up in a Stadium with a running track.
Looks like the OS is going to be a white elephant.

They said that about the millenium dome. AEG will take it on and have world class events.
 

SpurSince57

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2006
45,213
8,229
I'm not sure about assistance for house building, but the TFL site has an archived article proclaiming its support of the project at Cashburden Grove with £50 million of infrastructure improvements.

The improvements to Finsbury Park and Highbury and Islington were going ahead anyway, and Arsenal had to stump up for some of those at the former.

Here's Arsenal's s.106 obligations:

http://islington.gov.uk/DownloadableDocuments/Environment/Pdf/section106finalterms.pdf

That little lot cost them at least £60m, around four times our £15m-£17m. It would have been nearly £8m more if the plans to install escalators at Holloway Road and open up Drayton Park at weekends had gone ahead (part of that £50m you mentioned).

Arsenal got no public funding. The Dear Leader was telling porkies, and not for the first time.
 

worcestersauce

"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope
Jan 23, 2006
26,891
45,039
On the West Ham OS bid, if they win the "totally fair, unbiased and not at all predetermined outcome" bid for tenancy of the OS allowing them to sell the Boleyn ground would they not be daft to insist on a right to buy clause to avoid being made homeless at any time? If so they pretty much guarantee future ownership as and when they fancy it. That effectively means that the authorities are holding it for them until they are ready, to the exclusion of all other parties, you may think the authorities wouldn't fall for that and wouldn't allow that clause but that assumes that they aren't in favour of it anyway.
Something to watch out for I believe.


By the way I'm still intrigued to know who the anonymous complainant to the European Commission was, it seems very convenient that it gives the government the opportunity to close down the existing bid without actually saying it was because they were afraid they'd lose the Judicial Review, much better to blame some anonymous European doodah, timescales, finaces, blah blah blah than admit they were running scared of Tottenham Hotspur.
Does anyone else have the sneaking suspicion that the anonymous complaint was government instigated, clearly they, Boris and West Ham had already discussed the tenant option so they absolutely had to have discussed how they could bring it about, they just must have done, and this idea fits perfectly. Imagine the questions they'd have to answer if they'd done it openly, and all only a week after the IAAF delegation's visit. I hate to use the word but conspiracy springs to mind.
The more I consider it the whiffier it seems.
 

bigturnip

Tottenham till I die, Stratford over my dead body
Oct 8, 2004
1,640
49
It is all detailed in the New Stadium threads so just go through them again and you will find it.

You mean it is speculated in the New Stadium threads.

In fact Arsenal had the largest s106 requirements of any development to date, Arsenal built a £60m waste management plant for the council among a number of other financial commitments.

The only evidence I can find of money going from a public body to Arsenal, relating to their stadium development, is a £7.6m s106 refund for transport improvements which TfL decided they no longer wanted to carry out.

Daniel Levy released a statement saying that Arsenal received public funds, but he was either wrong, lying or has information that isn't in the public domain.
 

sloth

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2005
9,018
6,900
They did? Perhaps you could produce some evidence for this statement. Or is it just something that 'everyone knows'?

The improvements to Finsbury Park and Highbury and Islington were going ahead anyway, and Arsenal had to stump up for some of those at the former.

Here's Arsenal's s.106 obligations:

http://islington.gov.uk/DownloadableDocuments/Environment/Pdf/section106finalterms.pdf

That little lot cost them at least £60m, around four times our £15m-£17m. It would have been nearly £8m more if the plans to install escalators at Holloway Road and open up Drayton Park at weekends had gone ahead (part of that £50m you mentioned).

Arsenal got no public funding. The Dear Leader was telling porkies, and not for the first time.

What I'll find is a pile of horseshit.

You mean it is speculated in the New Stadium threads.

In fact Arsenal had the largest s106 requirements of any development to date, Arsenal built a £60m waste management plant for the council among a number of other financial commitments.

The only evidence I can find of money going from a public body to Arsenal, relating to their stadium development, is a £7.6m s106 refund for transport improvements which TfL decided they no longer wanted to carry out.

Daniel Levy released a statement saying that Arsenal received public funds, but he was either wrong, lying or has information that isn't in the public domain.

Here's the stuff from the other thread... seems like there's no lying, he isn't wrong and the information is presumably in the public domain...

Note also SS that the TFL press release proclaims the £50m they're stumping up to improve the tube stations is to "support AFC new Emirates stadium." Or have you information which suggests they were doing it anyway and Arsenal just got lucky?

This is the reply I received from the Club when I asked about this:

"There is a difference between public sector support and funding, or 'state aid'. There were elements of infrastructure delivered by the public sector through special partnership that, had they not been done, would have made the stadium undeliverable and unviable.
As part of the Arsenal project, there were a number of regeneration partnerships that were formed between Arsenal and the Housing associations, Arsenal and TFL and the LDA and Islington and The LDA and TFL.
Arsenal were part of a regeneration partnership which helped the Arsenal regeneration scheme become more viable and brought a substantial amount of public money to the wider scheme.
Money went into supporting affordable housing (£60 million) improving access (£5 million ) and improving transport( £7 million).
I hope this helps to answer your query on this matter.
Many thanks again,
The Northumberland Development Project team"


The accountants on here can pick the bones out of this statement, and inform us if the Club is telling the truth or whether they are misleading us.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/static/corporate/media/newscentre/archive/3549.html
Transport for London (TfL) today announced details of a £50m transport boost to support Arsenal Football Club's new Emirates stadium and to benefit the local community.

60 per cent of the stadium's 60,000 spectators will travel to and from the stadium by Tube
The improvements, part of TfL's £10 billion Investment Programme, include funding for bus, road, cycle and pedestrian improvements and passenger information.

Also included is a contribution towards the £10 million Finsbury Park Interchange which will be completed later this year, delivering major improvements to passengers connecting between London Bus, London Underground and National Rail services.

A travel plan is in place for fans travelling to the new stadium. Spectators will be encouraged to use Arsenal, Highbury & Islington and Finsbury Park stations, all within easy walking distance of the new stadium.

Holloway Road station will have restricted access before and after stadium events.

Richard Parry, London Underground Director of Strategy said: "TfL has worked closely with Arsenal FC, Islington Council and the Metropolitan Police to ensure that arrangements are in place to support all those travelling to Arsenal's new stadium and to benefit the local community.

"The plans will ensure safe and reliable access to and from three stations - Arsenal, Finsbury Park and Highbury & Islington - all within easy walking distance of the new stadium, as well as the many bus routes that serve the area.

"Anyone travelling to the new stadium or the local area will be able to go by public transport."

<h2> Station capacity</h2>

It is expected that 60 per cent of the stadium's 60,000 spectators will travel to and from the stadium by Tube. An assessment of train and station capacity shows that there is adequate overall capacity to get the estimated 36,000 spectators who will use the Tube to get to and from the stadium.

TfL will be encouraging spectators to make greater use of the Victoria line, with Highbury & Islington station being 10 to 15 minutes walk away from the new stadium.

King's Cross St. Pancras station is the point of entry for a large percentage of stadium traffic as it has access to both lines, thus enabling TfL to direct passengers accordingly through passenger announcements, signage and marshalling.

Increased staffing

Staffing will be increased at Underground stations on match days for the benefit and safety of passengers and additional trains will also operate on the Piccadilly line on match days from September.

TfL is also considering undertaking capacity and accessibility improvements at both Highbury & Islington and Finsbury Park stations.

TfL looked in detail at increasing capacity at Holloway Road, however, it was found that even high cost investment would not result in effective capacity improvements.

Even if station capacity could be increased, after Arsenal stadium events westbound Piccadilly line trains would be very busy when they reached Holloway Road, as spectators would use Finsbury Park and Arsenal stations further east along the line.

Restrictions

Holloway Road station is served only by lifts, and was not designed for use by the heavily-peaked passenger flows that are generated by a football stadium.

Consequently, it will be necessary to introduce the following restrictions:

From approximately 90 minutes before the start of any event at the new stadium, the station will be closed to all incoming customers;
All westbound trains will stop and customers will be allowed to exit the station unless overcrowding occurs
No eastbound trains will stop at the station for at least an hour prior to any event
At kick-off, the station will resume normal operations with the train service stopping as normal east and westbound, and customers will be able to enter and exit as normal
Approximately 15 minutes before the final whistle the station will again go into exit only operation but with trains stopping normally both east and westbound. At this point no customers wi
In May 2002, planning permission was granted to Arsenal Football Club (AFC) by London Borough of Islington to build a new stadium on a nearby site at Ashburton Grove. The stadium scheduled to open in August 2006 will have a capacity of 60,000
Conditions of planning permission require Arsenal Football Club to produce a Travel Plan to be agreed with all the relevant authorities including TfL, British Transport Police, Metropolitan Police (MPS) and LB Islington. The purpose of the Plan is to seek to encourage 80 per cent of spectators travel to the stadium by public transport. Arsenal's transport consultants Steer Davies Gleave have prepared the Travel Plan
The key aim of the Travel Plan is to accommodate spectators travelling to and from the new stadium while minimising effects on local residents
It was agreed, in consultation with the Mayor, LDA, LB Islington and AFC, that TfL would investigate the feasibility of capacity enhancement schemes at Highbury & Islington and Finsbury Park stations, all of which are within easy walking distance of the new stadium
The MPS will take the lead, working with TfL, on crowd management and queuing on match days
 

Spurs1960

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2011
2,424
1,220
You mean it is speculated in the New Stadium threads.

In fact Arsenal had the largest s106 requirements of any development to date, Arsenal built a £60m waste management plant for the council among a number of other financial commitments.

The only evidence I can find of money going from a public body to Arsenal, relating to their stadium development, is a £7.6m s106 refund for transport improvements which TfL decided they no longer wanted to carry out.

Daniel Levy released a statement saying that Arsenal received public funds, but he was either wrong, lying or has information that isn't in the public domain.

I think Daniel levy will know a little more about it than you do. It was all reported at the time that they received assistance. You are assuming assistance comes in the form of state aid, it didn't, it came through the council which is not classed as state aid but is still assistance. Without it Arsenal would not have built their stadium.

There is no reason why we should not receive the same assistance and I find it unusual that people feel we shouldn't get it. Personally I am sure we will receive plenty of assistance eventually. Mr Levy is doing an excellent job as is our excellent manager.
 

Spurs1960

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2011
2,424
1,220
Here's the stuff from the other thread... seems like there's no lying, he isn't wrong and the information is presumably in the public domain...

Note also SS that the TFL press release proclaims the £50m they're stumping up to improve the tube stations is to "support AFC new Emirates stadium." Or have you information which suggests they were doing it anyway and Arsenal just got lucky?

Thank you Sloth, much appreciated.
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Apr 1, 2005
41,363
74,893
At the end of the day it doesn't matter what Arsenal did or didn't get, but what Spurs get.
Hopefully the government/council/god can help us out. We still need the compulsory purchase orders to be cleared yet.
 

bigturnip

Tottenham till I die, Stratford over my dead body
Oct 8, 2004
1,640
49
I think Daniel levy will know a little more about it than you do. It was all reported at the time that they received assistance. You are assuming assistance comes in the form of state aid, it didn't, it came through the council which is not classed as state aid but is still assistance. Without it Arsenal would not have built their stadium.

There is no reason why we should not receive the same assistance and I find it unusual that people feel we shouldn't get it. Personally I am sure we will receive plenty of assistance eventually. Mr Levy is doing an excellent job as is our excellent manager.


You mean the same council who denied any financial assistance was given to Arsenal?

http://www.davidlammy.co.uk/sitedata/PDFS/Corbyn_Letter_REDACTED.pdf
 
Top