• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Tottenham Hotspur Stadium - Licence To Stand

Jordinho said:
CK QC: In the process of Archway's viability challenge it become clear that Tottenham Hotspur had £350m on tap to build the stadium in a document from their bankers HSBC

The £350m referred to is if required in the event of funding shortfall on the stadium as a bridging loan
Click to expand...

And there's where the transfer profits and TV money has been going for the last few years
 
jts1882 said:
HSBC?

At the rate of news this week they could be closed down before this is decided, especially if in a special account in Switzerland.
Click to expand...

Don't worry - I'm sure Uncle Joe uses his local Bahamas tax haven branch instead - well out of the reach of European tax authorities.
 
CK QC confirms that the name of a naming rights sponsor for the stadium whas not redacted from documents shown to the court

Christopher Katkowski QC has finished his submissions to the court on behalf of Tottenham Hotspur FC

Mr Christopher Lockhart-Mummary QC will now begin his right of reply to the submissions heard from the QC's representing Tottenham Hotspur, Haringey Council and the Secretary of State
 
CLM QC on validity of CPO: It can't be the law that all acts are valid and no case so decides and none is contended to do so

:eek::confused::rolleyes:

CLM QC: Our case throughout has been about the lack of authority within the acquiring body

CLM QC: Quite plainly pre-condition B has not been met as there is no obligation on the club to build
 
Do you think archway steel are sitting there like:

Double_facepalm.jpg


"why didn't we just take the money"
 
None of us are experts in this, but i really dont know what they are arguing for anymore. I cannot see anything but this getting booted out friday, seems very frivolous.!
 
Jordinho said:
So their case is that Haringey don't have the authority to issue a CPO?
Click to expand...

Think so. Think the detail Archway are saying is that SoS have no authority as they have no ability to force us to build the stadium (i.e. the CPO could go-ahead then we change our minds and move to a stadium elsewhere).

Quite clearly we've already built half of it though....also, don't know enough to know if this is even a relevant point.
 
CLM QC discussing SoS decision letter: "The potential financial viability of the scheme has been demonstrated" That is all he says with regard to commitment to the scheme

CLM QC: It is not the case that names of tenants for the site have been redacted from the document

CLM QC has read out a document that appears to contradict the statement that names had not been redacted saying that names of certain tenants/clients were indeed left out

CLM QC asserting that this demonstrates clear commitment to significant changes to the scheme

Christopher Katkowski QC has stood up to clarify saying that it was not the names of the hotel tenant, office tenant, and naming rights sponsor that were left out

CLM QC and Justice Dove discussing the exact wording of his contention that there were signifcant material changes to the plan, at the time the SoS made his decision, which he should have been made aware of and may have made a difference to his decision to grant permission for the making of a CPO

CLM QC: In all discussion no consideration has been given to discretion to Archway who is having their land and business purchased and their human rights engaged

Justice Dove thanks the QC's for their 'help in this matter' and thanks everybody in the court before saying that he will deliver judgement at 9.30am on Friday morning
 
I think for him to give a fairly short turn around for his decision highlights that his is probably made up already regarding this. Hope its on the positive side.
 
Jordinho said:
CLM QC discussing SoS decision letter: "The potential financial viability of the scheme has been demonstrated" That is all he says with regard to commitment to the scheme

Christopher Katkowski QC has stood up to clarify saying that it was not the names of the hotel tenant, office tenant, and naming rights sponsor that were left out

Justice Dove thanks the QC's for their 'help in this matter' and thanks everybody in the court before saying that he will deliver judgement at 9.30am on Friday morning
Click to expand...

Perhaps the name left out was that of the prospective new owners? ;)
 
imcallingbullsh*t said:
None of us are experts in this, but i really dont know what they are arguing for anymore. I cannot see anything but this getting booted out friday, seems very frivolous.!
Click to expand...
I have tried to read all the material referred from the hearing from Archways pov, and I honestly see their case as being...........nothing of substance!
 
So basically, Archway claim Spurs have no intention of actually building the stadium, Haringey haven't done enough in terms of making the club commit to the plans and Pickles shouldn't have signed off on it because he didn't know about this?
 
Jordinho said:
61,000 surely?
Click to expand...

Whats going on here?
Archway have a judge who was in the case for le arse ..help them get planning permission..

conspiracy theory...le arse is working for Archway to stop us from getting a new planned White Hart Lane of 61000
that would eclipse what they have+ making [this Stadium if it ever gets built] to be held up as long as possible?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back