-
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
- Thread starter Jordinho
- Start date
We are Tottenham
Kasey Keller
Whats going on here?
Archway have a QC 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?
Coys...LOL
Archway have a QC 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?
Coys...LOL
We are Tottenham
Kasey Keller
I have heard from someone who know Archway..said there Goons!
If they have a Lawyer working for them who works for le arse...says it all.
but is really true..if it is..it shows they are trying to stop us and nothing to do with us taking their livelihood away.
greatwhitenorf
Edgar Davids
When we learn that Spurs have a huge cash reserve ready to handle stadium financing, that a naming rights deal is already in place and that a developed plan is ready to expand the stadium in a new design it only serves to reinforce what an outstanding job Daniel Levy is doing. And all this after developing and growing a fabulous training facility while giving us a strongly competitive team that has gotten appreciably younger using several graduates of the club's academy.
If you're the judge looking at this case, all of the above is irrelevant to the decision he has to make. But as a Villa supporter, he can't help but see what we're seeing plus all the veiled background details this case has presented and not be envious and wish for his club to enjoy similar progress someday.
Friday morning, Ian Dove from the halfway line.
If you're the judge looking at this case, all of the above is irrelevant to the decision he has to make. But as a Villa supporter, he can't help but see what we're seeing plus all the veiled background details this case has presented and not be envious and wish for his club to enjoy similar progress someday.
Friday morning, Ian Dove from the halfway line.
We are Tottenham
Kasey Keller
yeah...we have come along way with Danny Levy despite some of us not being always happy with transfers and who we bring in..but he has done a great job on that front as well..
SoundAndVision
Michael Brown
so we have 350 million in the bank which Levy has been saving all these years, whilst that was going on we have managed to qualify for the cl 1 season and been a regular in the top 6 over past 10 years, regularly making a profit too.A genius, il be sad the day he leaves.
Interesting - if we get the all clear
yeah except we don't have 350m in the bank at all though do we
yeah except we don't have 350m in the bank at all though do we
We dont have that in the bank! We'll have £350m in sources of funding lined up comrising some cash in the bank (small % of the £350m), a contract with a company for the naming rights ready to sign (large chunk) and some debt funding, which we would repay over the years with the additional gate receipts
parklane1
Tony Galvin
But,but,but according to some he has been pocketing money and showing no ambition.
greatwhitenorf
Edgar Davids
The story has been largely ignored by media. The Mail had it's usual juvenile/alarmist claptrap yesterday but, since the appeal has looked increasingly frivolous, have dropped coverage today. Yesterday's article was full of useless, irrelevant details of the fire which have absolutely no bearing on the appeal story.
Hilarious. They simply don't approve of Spurs, do they? Fully expecting an alarmist piece on how training ground expansion will be an environmental disaster.
Hilarious. They simply don't approve of Spurs, do they? Fully expecting an alarmist piece on how training ground expansion will be an environmental disaster.
greatwhitenorf
Edgar Davids
What we have is equally valuable - a bank's hearty endorsement of the viability of the stadium project. That will carry clout in assessing the appeal.
Well i'm not an expert by any means, but in my own personal opinion while anyone willing to attend court has a case (and therefore a chance), the case does appear to be weak.
You have to look at it in the wider context, in that ultimately what the judge will be looking at is this;
Archway can dig out as many insinuations, accusation, dirt, they could prove Spurs covered stuff up, they could prove Spurs and Haringey lied blah blah blah. There's a court of appeal case where Mr Justice Park stated that sometimes litigants lie to improve prospects of a 'good' claim. He stated that while it was deplorable that they lied, should they lose the case? If their case was a good one anyway, then no.
Archway have attempted to imply that Spurs have pulled the wool over Haringey and the SoS's eyes in terms of our intentions of the land and that the SoS in particular wasn't given the full picture and that there is no guarantee that Spurs are committed to the project, therefore the CPO isn't valid.
However, not only have they no actual evidence of dishonest intentions on the part of Spurs (and I believe their counsel acting on instruction has very much watered down Archway's arguments to insinuation due to lack of any evidence - as it is against the bar code of conduct to accuse someone of wrong doing in proceedings without material evidence), but even if they could prove without doubt that Spurs withheld information or misled the SoS (a fact that has been denied by Spurs, the council and the SoS), but ultimately, if the case for the CPO was a good one anyway, it makes no difference.
Archway's argument that Spurs could just abandon the project and move elsewhere is flimsy in the extreme as the only thing that would make this a reality is Archway and the failure to grant a CPO against their land.
Their argument that Haringey and SoS's decision to grant and ratify the CPO were based on a scheme Spurs planned to materially change is even flimsier, as ultimately, if there is still to be a scheme of any description that involves substantial regeneration of the local area, then the grounds for granting a CPO have been met. The fact that the stadium may well be 61,000 capacity rather than 56 and may feature a roof that supporters can walk on and the flats might be moved to the other side of the site or whatever is neither here nor there.
Ultimately it will come down to the fact that Archway's arguments could be put forward by any landowner subject of a CPO in that any project will be subject to alteration or change until it is complete and that there are also never any 100% guarantee of any project being successfully completed.
I believe that the judge will find the following:
*Haringey had the relevant authority and grounds to grant the CPO and that the decision to do so was arrived at after sufficient scrutiny of the case, project and plans presented;
*The Sos properly considered all of the evidence available and was aware that the plans and project was subject to change and that any possible or likely changes would not have impacted his decision to ratify the CPO, being that they were not material to the legitimacy of the CPO (i.e. whatever version of the scheme ended up being taken forward to completion would have led to long-term regeneration of the area and long term benefits in keeping with the intention of the CPO);
*That Spurs were committed to the stadium and local regeneration projects and had demonstrated viability and funding to the necessary standards.
To be honest, if all Archway had to bring to the table was what we've seen, I am utterly shocked that they were not advised against the appeal by their solicitors. Although I guess they may have seen it as they had nothing much to lose having accumulated significant legal costs already?
Doesn't paint them in a good light. The way I see it this appeal and the request for full disclosure by Spurs/Haringey etc was a massive fishing expedition. I think they were looking at all the press stories, rumours and fan forums about Spurs struggling to finance the stadium and hoped for a massive jackpot in terms of evidence in the disclosed documents that would point to the scheme not being financially viable for Spurs.
The financial viability was probably their key argument as if the disclosure pointed to Spurs having no funding in place and no contingency, the whole CPO would start to look a bit flimsy.
Unfortunately for them the disclosure has actually demonstrated that almost all of the funding and contingency is in place and that key anchor tenants for surrounding properties appear to have been found.
The validity of the CPO is weak as it doesn't contain any argument that ANY landowner subject of a CPO wouldn't throw in there if contesting one (i.e. "well how can you guarantee that the project will be successfully completed and that all parties are committed?)
Cochise
Steve Carr
So what you are saying is that if any of the other tenants who owned that land wanted to, they could have contested the same CPO had they been issued it? Archway as the last and most high profile tenant have used this opportunity in the hopes of finding something.
I'm still wondering whether or not they are doing this purely because they have already fudged themselves financially and have nothing to lose.
I'm not really saying that (although it is true, any one of the businesses that have taken our offer to purchase their land and relocate could have dug their heels in like Archway, been the subject of a CPO and then contested it. It's anyone's right to reject an offer to buy something belonging to you (including land) and when subject of a CPO it's anyone's right to contest it and to appeal where allowed to.
What my actual point was, is that Archway's case against the validity of the CPO is weak in that their arguments could be put forward by any landowner that is subject of a CPO, i.e. if Bradford council issued a CPO forcing me to sell my house and relocate, i could appeal it and say "well what proof do you have that whatever developer that wants to build on my land is fully committed to the project, you do know that they were considering another plot of land 2 years ago? Oh and how do you know they won't change details in the scheme you've ratified? They might move that road 10 metres to the left after the CPO has been granted, you never know. I've seen rumours on line they want to lease a building to Tesco, when their original plans were to lease to Morrisons."
If Archway's appeal is successful, then in my view any appeal against a CPO anywhere at anytime would also be successful. That's why it will fail (in my opinion).
They need to bring something pretty earth shattering to the table to have a hope in hell's chance and all they've brought is insinuation and immaterial arguments.
All IMO and subject to me being wrong of course
And yeah I think this appeal was a last shot in the dark for them, I think they thought, we've already fudged ourselves in costs, let's go for the appeal, request full disclosure of documents and hope something in there is a golden ticket to getting Daniel Levy's balls in a vice. I suspect that unfortunately for them, they will wake up on Friday morning to the equivalent of Levy repeatedly tea bagging them in the face.