-
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
Carlyle takeover, was Cain Hoy takeover
- Thread starter Superhudd
- Start date
chicken_badge
Gudni Bergsson
Re: Cain Hoy takeover
It looks to me Archway are well positioned now to get an inflated compromise
It looks to me Archway are well positioned now to get an inflated compromise
Re: Cain Hoy takeover
Yes. They probably are.
Levy really hates to lose, or even draw, this kind of poker game but I can't see him cutting off his nose to spite his face. Pragmatism will likely win out.
Hopefully in time for Spurs to restore the original construction schedule, enabling them to move in to the new stadium in 2017.
Yes. They probably are.
Levy really hates to lose, or even draw, this kind of poker game but I can't see him cutting off his nose to spite his face. Pragmatism will likely win out.
Hopefully in time for Spurs to restore the original construction schedule, enabling them to move in to the new stadium in 2017.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
Re: Cain Hoy takeover
Archway have already lost.
We'd probably lose all political support for the Mayor and DCLG if we went a did a deal that undermines them.
There'd also be issues with the 70 other businesses who accepted our fair offer in the first place, who may try and seek recompense if Archway get the x10 mark-up price they are after.
Bankrupting Archway in court is the only way the establishment will allow this to end now.
Archway have already lost.
We'd probably lose all political support for the Mayor and DCLG if we went a did a deal that undermines them.
There'd also be issues with the 70 other businesses who accepted our fair offer in the first place, who may try and seek recompense if Archway get the x10 mark-up price they are after.
Bankrupting Archway in court is the only way the establishment will allow this to end now.
Re: Cain Hoy takeover
Eh?
With all due respect, GB, that's a load of nonsense!
The Mayor and the DCLG won't give a monkeys if we settle with Archway. The only thing that concerns the DCLG is that they aren't made to look like mugs because of a High Court judge tearing their decision to shreds. The Mayor has nothing to do with it at all. To the extent that he is interested, it is only that regeneration in Tottenham should begin asap - and the surest way for that to happen is if Spurs and Archway settle. Not to mention, of course, that the Mayor will no longer be the Mayor by the time that Spurs move into the new stadium.
As to the remaining 70 businesses, they are irrelevant to this case. The vast majority of them were tenants and never had any say in the matter. When their landlords agreed a price with Spurs, they had to seek new premises. That's all. As to the landlords themselves, they will have no comeback. Why should they? They did a deal that they were happy with at the time. They might look on jealously at the Josifs if Spurs and Archway do settle at a much higher price. But it won't do them any good. It's just business. If I sell a kilo of gold at £20 per gram in a bad market but then, a year later in a bouyant market, the price shoots up to £40 per gram, I can't go back to the party who bought my gold and "seek recompense".
Eh?
With all due respect, GB, that's a load of nonsense!
The Mayor and the DCLG won't give a monkeys if we settle with Archway. The only thing that concerns the DCLG is that they aren't made to look like mugs because of a High Court judge tearing their decision to shreds. The Mayor has nothing to do with it at all. To the extent that he is interested, it is only that regeneration in Tottenham should begin asap - and the surest way for that to happen is if Spurs and Archway settle. Not to mention, of course, that the Mayor will no longer be the Mayor by the time that Spurs move into the new stadium.
As to the remaining 70 businesses, they are irrelevant to this case. The vast majority of them were tenants and never had any say in the matter. When their landlords agreed a price with Spurs, they had to seek new premises. That's all. As to the landlords themselves, they will have no comeback. Why should they? They did a deal that they were happy with at the time. They might look on jealously at the Josifs if Spurs and Archway do settle at a much higher price. But it won't do them any good. It's just business. If I sell a kilo of gold at £20 per gram in a bad market but then, a year later in a bouyant market, the price shoots up to £40 per gram, I can't go back to the party who bought my gold and "seek recompense".
milo
Jack L. Jones
Re: Cain Hoy takeover
People settle out of court all of the time and I really doubt that DCLG or the Mayor would give two ****s if we did this with Archway, in fact, I would expect they would be delighted if it meant that the redevelopment started earlier.
The club need to get some new lawyers if the contract with the other businesses did not include a clause that said it was a full and final payment.
People settle out of court all of the time and I really doubt that DCLG or the Mayor would give two ****s if we did this with Archway, in fact, I would expect they would be delighted if it meant that the redevelopment started earlier.
The club need to get some new lawyers if the contract with the other businesses did not include a clause that said it was a full and final payment.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
Re: Cain Hoy takeover
I think HS2 will be very much at the forefront of the government's mind
Imagine if all those 5000 house owners along the proposed route suddenly think they can get 10 times what their property is worth by contesting their CPOs.
It's just a really bad precedent to set - that immediately accepting the (generous) CPO valuation isn't the best way to go.
I think HS2 will be very much at the forefront of the government's mind
Imagine if all those 5000 house owners along the proposed route suddenly think they can get 10 times what their property is worth by contesting their CPOs.
It's just a really bad precedent to set - that immediately accepting the (generous) CPO valuation isn't the best way to go.
Re: Cain Hoy takeover
The problem actually now is I bet Archway will want all of their legal costs included in any out of court settlement. The longer the legal battle runs on the bigger the out of court settlement is.
The problem actually now is I bet Archway will want all of their legal costs included in any out of court settlement. The longer the legal battle runs on the bigger the out of court settlement is.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
Re: Cain Hoy takeover
But they've lost. Badly. And twice. They are going to have to pay Haringey's legal costs. All they are doing is hoping the few months delay might give them a final little chip to try and salvage something from a disasterous situation.
They can't contest the CPO - they've already done that and it failed.
They are now contesting the CPO review process.
But they've lost. Badly. And twice. They are going to have to pay Haringey's legal costs. All they are doing is hoping the few months delay might give them a final little chip to try and salvage something from a disasterous situation.
They can't contest the CPO - they've already done that and it failed.
They are now contesting the CPO review process.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
Re: Cain Hoy takeover
If they do prove Pickles was negligent in the process (which is hugely unlikely), then the CPO can be overturned. In that case we'd just have to make an offer that they couldn't refuse. Or we can just sit tight for 6 months and not give the gold diggers an extra £23m.
If they do prove Pickles was negligent in the process (which is hugely unlikely), then the CPO can be overturned. In that case we'd just have to make an offer that they couldn't refuse. Or we can just sit tight for 6 months and not give the gold diggers an extra £23m.
Re: Cain Hoy takeover
Please stop, GB!
There are grounds to challenge the Archway CPO because, regardless that there might be wider regeneration benefits, there isn't a cut and dried case to be made that Spurs building a new stadium is in the public interest.
By contrast, there isn't a chance in hell that any judge in this country or in Europe is going to rule that one of the biggest and most important transport infrastructure projects in Britain for decades isn't in the public interest.
Please! It's a silly comparison! I'm sure you know it and that you're just arguing for the sake of it!
Please stop, GB!
There are grounds to challenge the Archway CPO because, regardless that there might be wider regeneration benefits, there isn't a cut and dried case to be made that Spurs building a new stadium is in the public interest.
By contrast, there isn't a chance in hell that any judge in this country or in Europe is going to rule that one of the biggest and most important transport infrastructure projects in Britain for decades isn't in the public interest.
Please! It's a silly comparison! I'm sure you know it and that you're just arguing for the sake of it!
Re: Cain Hoy takeover
I'm not sure what that would achieve? What's the significance of six months?
You were right first time. Spurs would have to make a very big offer. Archway would hold all the cards.
I'm not sure what that would achieve? What's the significance of six months?
You were right first time. Spurs would have to make a very big offer. Archway would hold all the cards.
Last edited:
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
Re: Cain Hoy takeover
A £400m regeneration scheme in the 2nd poorest area of London is about as big as you get after HS2 (which is a once in a generation scale project).
If we go screw you and switch to a greenfield site in the Lee Valley, it would be absolutely devastating for N17.
A £400m regeneration scheme in the 2nd poorest area of London is about as big as you get after HS2 (which is a once in a generation scale project).
If we go screw you and switch to a greenfield site in the Lee Valley, it would be absolutely devastating for N17.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
Re: Cain Hoy takeover
6 months while it gets laughed out of court. It's already been rejected at every level it has been considered at.
Paying off Archway now would be like conceding a match when we are 4-0 up with 5 minutes to play.
6 months while it gets laughed out of court. It's already been rejected at every level it has been considered at.
Paying off Archway now would be like conceding a match when we are 4-0 up with 5 minutes to play.
Re: Cain Hoy takeover
Hang on......the already established hypothetical scenario was that Archway had won their case in court! :-k
Make you mind up!
And by the way, there has so far only been one judgement on the CPO. Not multiple judgements as you suggest. And that one judgement took five or six times longer than the norm for such judgements because the appointed Planning Inspector recommended that the Secretary of State REJECT it! Pickles chose not to follow the Planning Inspector's advice, as is his right, but only after attempting to persuade Spurs to offer more by way of S106 contributions in order that the CPO might seem more legally robust.
So while it is still probable that Haringey will win, it is by no means certain and, far from laughing the appeal out of court, I am quite sure that the judge will consider his verdict very carefully indeed.
Lastly, paying Archway off now has nothing to do with winning or losing. It has everything to do with getting started on the desperately needed stadium now rather than in one or even two years' time. As much as having to pay Archway more than their site is worth will hurt, it won't hurt nearly as much as the money lost and the destabilising uncertainty as a consequence of further delay.
Hang on......the already established hypothetical scenario was that Archway had won their case in court! :-k
Make you mind up!
And by the way, there has so far only been one judgement on the CPO. Not multiple judgements as you suggest. And that one judgement took five or six times longer than the norm for such judgements because the appointed Planning Inspector recommended that the Secretary of State REJECT it! Pickles chose not to follow the Planning Inspector's advice, as is his right, but only after attempting to persuade Spurs to offer more by way of S106 contributions in order that the CPO might seem more legally robust.
So while it is still probable that Haringey will win, it is by no means certain and, far from laughing the appeal out of court, I am quite sure that the judge will consider his verdict very carefully indeed.
Lastly, paying Archway off now has nothing to do with winning or losing. It has everything to do with getting started on the desperately needed stadium now rather than in one or even two years' time. As much as having to pay Archway more than their site is worth will hurt, it won't hurt nearly as much as the money lost and the destabilising uncertainty as a consequence of further delay.
Last edited:
Re: Cain Hoy takeover
There is demonstrably some doubt as to the legality of the CPO served on Archway. Hence the difficulty that the DCLG had in coming to their decision.
There will be no doubt about the legality of any CPO's served on property owners affected by HS2.
There is no comparison.
There is demonstrably some doubt as to the legality of the CPO served on Archway. Hence the difficulty that the DCLG had in coming to their decision.
There will be no doubt about the legality of any CPO's served on property owners affected by HS2.
There is no comparison.
chicken_badge
Gudni Bergsson
Re: Cain Hoy takeover
If we have a serious big buyer at the table with the right bid I think we might settle.
I had a similar situation recently.
We sold our flat last year. It was on a slightly short lease so we negotiated an extension with the landlord. We felt we could have got him down a bit more if we waited. We had a buyer lined up willing to pay a decent price. But she rightly expected this problem to be resolved before committing. So we were forced to settle higher, but in the bigger picture the excess amount was worth it compared to the extra it would have cost us letting our buyer go.
If we have a serious big buyer at the table with the right bid I think we might settle.
I had a similar situation recently.
We sold our flat last year. It was on a slightly short lease so we negotiated an extension with the landlord. We felt we could have got him down a bit more if we waited. We had a buyer lined up willing to pay a decent price. But she rightly expected this problem to be resolved before committing. So we were forced to settle higher, but in the bigger picture the excess amount was worth it compared to the extra it would have cost us letting our buyer go.
Re: Cain Hoy takeover
Unfortunately the legal system doesn't work like that. They don't need to claw back any kind of large margin. They just need one of their legal team to hit on a point that carries weight with a judge in one review, one court hearing, whatever.
Witness us v West Ham over the Olympic Stadium. Levy's legal team lost case after case, but at the last minute, we got a couple of rulings in our favour which screwed West Ham quite significantly:
1) That there were issues with the bidding process which meant it had to be done again
2) That any club moving in would be tenants and wouldn't be given ownership of the stadium
I bet West Ham were feeling really confident after all the decisions in their favour.
Now instead of a purpose-modified stadium they own with all the naming rights and corporate facilities for free, they've ended up as tenants in an athletics stadium with a football pitch in the middle.
Unfortunately the legal system doesn't work like that. They don't need to claw back any kind of large margin. They just need one of their legal team to hit on a point that carries weight with a judge in one review, one court hearing, whatever.
Witness us v West Ham over the Olympic Stadium. Levy's legal team lost case after case, but at the last minute, we got a couple of rulings in our favour which screwed West Ham quite significantly:
1) That there were issues with the bidding process which meant it had to be done again
2) That any club moving in would be tenants and wouldn't be given ownership of the stadium
I bet West Ham were feeling really confident after all the decisions in their favour.
Now instead of a purpose-modified stadium they own with all the naming rights and corporate facilities for free, they've ended up as tenants in an athletics stadium with a football pitch in the middle.