-
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
New Stadium and Training Ground - Pg 104 Northumberland Park master plan
- Thread starter Gutter Boy
- Start date
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
I agree, i had a load of people on my ignore list from the last site but i can not now remember who they are so sadly i can not remember who the traitors are. I took markysimmo and leedspurs off ignore as i enjoy reading their posts but i feel differently towards them now and it will take many years and lots of flowers and choclates for me to completely forget.
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
One of the online papers saying we are going to knock down some properties by whl train station so we have a "wembley way" walk towards the new ground.
I guess they mean the big block of flats straight to the left as you come out?
Would look proper good if we had a wembley way walk but i imagine the people living their would not agree.
I guess they mean the big block of flats straight to the left as you come out?
Would look proper good if we had a wembley way walk but i imagine the people living their would not agree.
I posted on the skyscrapercity forum that it'd be good if we had some kind of Wembley style direct route from WHL station to the new stadium. Hopefully the online papers have got it right!
Notmegov
Roman Pavlyuchenko
but Tottenham is a brick hole!, but i still love it.
Parts of Tottenham are dire.....which is why every Spurs fan should have opposed Stratford and backed the re generating of the area. The club is the area, and the area should reflect our prestige.
Instead, I was reading pie charts of what percentage of Spurs fans actually lived in Tottenham, and why we "shouldnt hold the club back"for such a small amount of people. Shame.
By the way, Im not on about anyone who was open to moving....alot of good people just wanted to improve, and reluctantly saw it as the only option.
But the words of a few, in regards to how litle Tottenham meant, and our ties to the area, with actual justifications along the lines of, "I dont want to get mugged after the game, I want to have a nice lunch before the game, a nice dinner after, and be able to find my car easily....." will never be forgotten.
F#cking disgrace. There are people who have waited a long time for this moment, and any bandwagen hoppers, who want to deny what they said, just dont even bother. You know where I stand, and you know who you are. We all do, so keep it.
But the words of a few, in regards to how litle Tottenham meant, and our ties to the area, with actual justifications along the lines of, "I dont want to get mugged after the game, I want to have a nice lunch before the game, a nice dinner after, and be able to find my car easily....." will never be forgotten.
F#cking disgrace. There are people who have waited a long time for this moment, and any bandwagen hoppers, who want to deny what they said, just dont even bother. You know where I stand, and you know who you are. We all do, so keep it.
Emirates actually paid the money up front which is why it was much lower, that in turn made their stadium cheaper as they could pay builders etc upfront as well. Once that ends which probably isnt that far away then they will rake in even more money.
To those saying Chelsea, Man U etc will start to get naming rights deals signed they may well do however dont forget that we are getting a new stadium which isnt named or referenced to as yet so it obviously commands a higher premium. If an existing stadium is renamed then most people will refer to it as the old name anyway which obivously sponsors dont like. I mean if we got WHL sponsored everyone here would still call it WHL.
As for people saying ?ú5m a year is a good deal with ?ú15m for the shirts over 20 years is a bit silly, we could easily command higher than that. In those years we would get more money and therefore expect a better team making us more attractive to sponsors.
Again with the extremes.
There will be fewer corporate sales (or at a lower price) in Tottenham than there would have been in Stratford, that's just common sense. Tottenham will still be a bitch to drive to, it's far further from the City and if you think building a new stadium will regenerate the area then you're deluded. The only way to regenerate the area would be the way it's been done all over London - build council housing further out, knock down the flats and sell the resultant less dense housing to private buyers with as little 'affordable housing' as possible. Gentrification, I believe, is the term.
You're also forgetting that by turnung down Stratford, the club would have been throwing away a ?ú300M-?ú400M asset that would have been virtually free of charge. It's a slim chance that the football money bubble would have burst while we had a large outstanding debt, but that would have killed off the club. Hopefully these rumours of a huge naming rights deal paying for the whole stadium are true, but as things stood with no sponsorship in place or readily available, there was literally no other option.
So, will staying in N17 cause us to be mid-table? Probably not. Does it decrease our chances of selling corporate packages? Probably. Does it increase the risk the club has to take in order to improve capacity? Absolutely.
Or, in the words of a reasonable person who is capable of understanding that not all people agree on everything, an opinion that differs from yours.
Finney Is Back
Barry Daines
This is a very good post. Additionally at the time of making the Olympic stadium bid we were having all sorts of hurdles put in the way of the NDP. No funding from the council, no funding from the mayor's office, requirements for the club to pay for various transport and access improvements (with IMO some virtually unrelated to the new stadium - i.e. Tottenham Hale) Having to bow down to bodies such as English Heritage and CABE who can be overruled and having the scale of the enabling development drastically cut back.
Since then the goalposts have moved considerably and some of these probably only as a direct result of the Stratford bid, as Harringey suddenly realised the implications of a THFC free Tottenham.
This ?ú27 million commitment from the public bodies is massive.... It is essentially 10% of the cost of the entire project that we no longer need to find.... While ?ú450 million is the number often bandied around for the cost of the NDP, that figure is the entire project cost and will include the cost of the land & planning (already accounted for), stadium and the building of the enabling development. If we assume that the Supermarket at the North of the site and commercial/residential buildings at the South of the site are profit making (and why build them otherwise?) then we're left with the estimated ?ú250 million for the stadium (taken from Emirates cost) + the surrounding area improvements (now taken care of by the public authorities.
The landscape for THFC in Harringey has changed massively in the last few months. We have gone from being treated as a cash cow to pay for wider regeneration to being the catalyst who can help that regeneration and is deserving of help from public monies to ensure this happens. How much of that was down to Stratford and how much down to the riots none of us will ever really know, but it would be foolish to discount the fact that it being viable for us to stay in Tottenham is very different now compared to a year or so ago.
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
http://www.tottenhamjournal.co.uk/n...bley_way_could_see_homes_demolished_1_1195558
Looks interesting.
Plans for a “Wembley Way-style” walkway linking White Hart Lane rail station to a new 56,000-seater stadium proposed for Tottenham Hotspur have been revealed.
CommentsEmailPrintGot a story?..To send a link to this page to a friend, you must be logged in.
..
A letter detailing the proposal, which has been discussed behind closed doors since December, was sent to all residents likely to be affected by any future development last Friday.
But Cllr Alan Stanton criticised the council’s letter as “spin”, accusing it of failing to highlight the possible “ “demolition of people’s homes and relocation” in the Love Lane and Whitehall Street areas of Tottenham, should the plans go ahead.
He said: “The letter should have explained about the discussions that have been taking place. What the letter says is ‘good things are going to happen’, what the letter doesn’t say is ‘there are risks’. We need to tell people the truth - the good things and the bad things.”
Details of the ?ú8.5million scheme, funded by City Hall, are scarce but will require “land acquisition” to create a “new public boulevard” or square linking the stadium to a “new White Hart Lane Station ticket hall”, Haringey Council said.
It is part of a wider ?ú27 million bid by Haringey Council, Tottenham Hotspur and the Mayor of London to regenerate the area.
Under the North Tottenham Regeneration Programme, the council has pledged ?ú9million towards improvements in the area, to supplement a total of ?ú18million promised by the Mayor’s Greater London Authority.
Spurs chairman Daniel Levy insisted the club’s Northumberland Park Development project, including the new stadium along with homes, shops and leisure facilities, had the “potential to kick-start the long-term regeneration of north Tottenham”.
A council spokeswoman said residents from Love Lane Estate, Whitehall Street and Brereton Road had been invited to a “drop-in session this week to talk about ways of improving their area as part of the wider regeneration”.
Looks interesting.
Plans for a “Wembley Way-style” walkway linking White Hart Lane rail station to a new 56,000-seater stadium proposed for Tottenham Hotspur have been revealed.
CommentsEmailPrintGot a story?..To send a link to this page to a friend, you must be logged in.
..
A letter detailing the proposal, which has been discussed behind closed doors since December, was sent to all residents likely to be affected by any future development last Friday.
But Cllr Alan Stanton criticised the council’s letter as “spin”, accusing it of failing to highlight the possible “ “demolition of people’s homes and relocation” in the Love Lane and Whitehall Street areas of Tottenham, should the plans go ahead.
He said: “The letter should have explained about the discussions that have been taking place. What the letter says is ‘good things are going to happen’, what the letter doesn’t say is ‘there are risks’. We need to tell people the truth - the good things and the bad things.”
Details of the ?ú8.5million scheme, funded by City Hall, are scarce but will require “land acquisition” to create a “new public boulevard” or square linking the stadium to a “new White Hart Lane Station ticket hall”, Haringey Council said.
It is part of a wider ?ú27 million bid by Haringey Council, Tottenham Hotspur and the Mayor of London to regenerate the area.
Under the North Tottenham Regeneration Programme, the council has pledged ?ú9million towards improvements in the area, to supplement a total of ?ú18million promised by the Mayor’s Greater London Authority.
Spurs chairman Daniel Levy insisted the club’s Northumberland Park Development project, including the new stadium along with homes, shops and leisure facilities, had the “potential to kick-start the long-term regeneration of north Tottenham”.
A council spokeswoman said residents from Love Lane Estate, Whitehall Street and Brereton Road had been invited to a “drop-in session this week to talk about ways of improving their area as part of the wider regeneration”.
Superhudd
Simon Davies
Regarding the supermarket build, can anyone explain why the cost of this is involved in the total project price, when as far as I am aware its Sainsburys building should they not be paying for it.
When the 450m figure is being banded about, should it be less than that. As said above the real stadium build may well be 250m, so why are we all so focused on the 450m.
When the 450m figure is being banded about, should it be less than that. As said above the real stadium build may well be 250m, so why are we all so focused on the 450m.
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
I agree and also i was under the impression we had already paid a large part of the costs for the planning and site clearing.
I thought that sainsbury would actually be paying us to build the supermarket there.
