• 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

Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed

Jordinho said:
West Ham United block Tottenham hopes of renting Upton Park

Ahead of their move to the Olympic Park, West Ham have taken steps to prevent Spurs from using Upton Park ahead of their north London redevelopment

West Ham United have “Tottenham-proofed” their contract with the buyers of Upton Park to prevent it falling into the hands of their fierce rivals.

The property developer Galliard Group agreed to buy Upton Park once West Ham make the move to the Olympic Stadium in 2016.

It has now emerged that a clause in the contract states that West Ham do not have to leave Upton Park in a fit state for football and plan to gut the stadium ahead of their exit.

That rules out Tottenham Hotspur trying to rent Upton Park off Galliard while they wait for White Hart Lane to be redeveloped, having already failed in a bid to buy West Ham’s stadium to use for a season.

A senior West Ham source said: “It is correct that the Boleyn Ground will not be fit for football after West Ham’s final game in 2016.

This is because Hammers fans will be offered the opportunity to secure their own piece of history through a special auction of memorabilia, which will cover most, if not all, of the essential parts of the stadium.

“In addition, some of the most identifiable fixtures will be coming with us to Stratford and essential equipment relating to the pitch and other areas will be taken away and reused at the club’s training facilities.”

With Daniel Levy, the Tottenham chairman, still searching for a sponsor to pay £150 million for the naming rights for the club’s new stadium, its projected opening date has been pushed back to 2018-19.

That means Spurs need a temporary home for the 2017-18 season and have been looking at ground-sharing with MK Dons and playing big games at Wembley.

However, the possibility of Spurs ground-sharing with West Ham in the Olympic Stadium for the 2017-18 campaign, the season after West Ham move in, will be debated again, with Mayor of London Boris Johnson to be quizzed on the subject.

Andrew Boff, leader of the Greater London Authority Conservatives, will ask Johnson if West Ham have the power to veto Tottenham, if the club approached the London Legacy Development Corporation requesting a ground-share deal.

Boff is a critic of the LLDC’s decision to sign the Olympic Stadium over to West Ham on a 99-year lease, arguing that it represents a poor deal for the taxpayer.

Karren Brady, the West Ham vice-chairman, has claimed that the club would block any attempt by their London rivals to share the stadium and they are insistent they hold a permanent right of veto.

It was revealed this week that the firm working on the Olympic Stadium, Balfour Beatty, had lobbied for another £50 million of taxpayers’ cash to complete the work at the site.

Under the terms of the 99-year lease deal signed by West Ham with the LLDC, the club is not obliged to foot any of the extra cost.

West Ham appeared to consider the prospect of introducing a ‘singing section’ at the Olympic Stadium for all of four hours on Tuesday afternoon.

Jack Sullivan, son of the co-owner David, posted two messages on Twitter that said: “Possibility of a singing fans section at the OS anyone got any ideas what it should be called? Also, do you think a singing section is a good idea, an area where all the passionate fans can sit together and chant throughout the game.”

However, following a host of negative responses, Sullivan added another tweet that read: “Thanks for your help – bad idea so will not be doing that.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/west-ham/11178316/West-Ham-United-block-Tottenham-hopes-of-renting-Upton-Park.html
Click to expand...

That is an absolutely terrible piece of journalism. I was shocked to see that it was from the Telegraph as it is pure tabloid style journalism. Of course West Ham will re-use/sell any part of the stadium that they can. I would hope that we do exactly the same with WHL when (if?) we eventually get started on our own new stadium. There is nothing in that piece that indicates West Ham have done anything to 'Tottenham proof' their contract. Just that they have ensured they can pass on seats, turnstyles, signs, etc to their fans when they leave.

The Telegraph's online editor should be ashamed of that piece.

The Boleyn will be completely unsuitable for Spurs anyway. The cost of us persuading the developer to sit on starting their development for a couple of years would be huge. Unfortunately I think we are talking to MK Dons as it is just about the only option left in (or should I say out of) town! Our only hope now is that West Ham can be forced/shamed into having to share with us for a year (which is perhaps now even more likely considering the fact that it looks as though another £50 million of taxpayers money is about to be poured into it due to the new roof going massively over budget.
 
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed

I think sharing the OS is the best option, but I guess much depends if West Ham have a permanent veto or not. Such a shame we didn't win the 'OS battle', Levy was right that it was the best option for us, also it seems we were played as mugs.
 
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed

Shelfie said:
I think sharing the OS is the best option, but I guess much depends if West Ham have a permanent veto or not. Such a shame we didn't win the 'OS battle', Levy was right that it was the best option for us, also it seems we were played as mugs.
Click to expand...

Why would any landlord offer any tenant the ability to veto what they do with their property?

It's certainly not beyond those in the public sector to do something that stupid, but I find the idea unlikely.
 
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed

Jordinho said:
West Ham appeared to consider the prospect of introducing a ‘singing section’ at the Olympic Stadium for all of four hours on Tuesday afternoon.

Jack Sullivan, son of the co-owner David, posted two messages on Twitter that said: “Possibility of a singing fans section at the OS anyone got any ideas what it should be called? Also, do you think a singing section is a good idea, an area where all the passionate fans can sit together and chant throughout the game.”
Click to expand...

Why not have the singing area where there's the largest collection of West Ham fans?

SNN0915XX-682_944953a.jpg
 
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed

Finney Is Back said:
That is an absolutely terrible piece of journalism. I was shocked to see that it was from the Telegraph as it is pure tabloid style journalism. Of course West Ham will re-use/sell any part of the stadium that they can. I would hope that we do exactly the same with WHL when (if?) we eventually get started on our own new stadium. There is nothing in that piece that indicates West Ham have done anything to 'Tottenham proof' their contract. Just that they have ensured they can pass on seats, turnstyles, signs, etc to their fans when they leave.

The Telegraph's online editor should be ashamed of that piece.

The Boleyn will be completely unsuitable for Spurs anyway. The cost of us persuading the developer to sit on starting their development for a couple of years would be huge. Unfortunately I think we are talking to MK Dons as it is just about the only option left in (or should I say out of) town! Our only hope now is that West Ham can be forced/shamed into having to share with us for a year (which is perhaps now even more likely considering the fact that it looks as though another £50 million of taxpayers money is about to be poured into it due to the new roof going massively over budget.
Click to expand...
There have been massive cuts at the Telegraph and they have lost a lot of senior journalists. It sounds like a horror show from what I have read in Private Eye.
 
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed

scaramanga said:
Why would any landlord offer any tenant the ability to veto what they do with their property?

It's certainly not beyond those in the public sector to do something that stupid, but I find the idea unlikely.
Click to expand...

And there are the key words in that sentence....

It becomes clearer and clearer with every passing week that the two best options for the Olympic stadium were either the original plan (remove all but the concrete substructure and have a 25,000 athletics and community stadium) or our plan (to rebuild the stadium purely for football and provide athletics with a proper stadium via developing Crystal Palace).

As things currently stand UK athletics will get use of the stadium for just a couple of months each Summer with £200 million being spent out of the public purse for a guaranteed return of £2 million PA (a 1% return that doesn't even result in covering the conversion cost over the course of the 99 year lease).... In fact I doubt that the £2M PA will even cover the yearly maintenance costs! Of course the LDA (or whatever it's called) can also recoup extra costs via naming rights, staging additional events (which will of course have to fit in around West Ham) and a share of the food and drink sales at the stadium - but I still think it will offer an extremely poor rate of return on the £200 million conversion outlay.
 
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed

Finney Is Back said:
And there are the key words in that sentence....

It becomes clearer and clearer with every passing week that the two best options for the Olympic stadium were either the original plan (remove all but the concrete substructure and have a 25,000 athletics and community stadium) or our plan (to rebuild the stadium purely for football and provide athletics with a proper stadium via developing Crystal Palace).

As things currently stand UK athletics will get use of the stadium for just a couple of months each Summer with £200 million being spent out of the public purse for a guaranteed return of £2 million PA (a 1% return that doesn't even result in covering the conversion cost over the course of the 99 year lease).... In fact I doubt that the £2M PA will even cover the yearly maintenance costs! Of course the LDA (or whatever it's called) can also recoup extra costs via naming rights, staging additional events (which will of course have to fit in around West Ham) and a share of the food and drink sales at the stadium - but I still think it will offer an extremely poor rate of return on the £200 million conversion outlay.
Click to expand...

Or you could have had both Spurs stadium and a smaller athletics stadium on the same site, it is a huge site. Shared travel links, shared catering etc.
 
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed

​
Bullet said:
Or you could have had both Spurs stadium and a smaller athletics stadium on the same site, it is a huge site. Shared travel links, shared catering etc.
Click to expand...

Proper national ahtletics stadium at Crystal Palace and the warm up track on the Olympic site retained with some small capacity stands added that could be used for club level athletics meets and as a community stadium.

I still cannot understand why UK Athletics seemed to have such a loud voice in all of this - if they wanted to retain athletics use at the Olympic stadium then they should've been asked to pay the money to ensure it.

In a way I am happy, as without UK Athletics kicking up such a fuss I think we would now be playing our penultimate season at WHL with a move to Stratford on the horizon. The most laughable argument put forward was that it would've been a huge waste of money to knock down a £700 million stadium (or whatever it cost) so that Spurs could build a new one. Of course with no mention of the fact that the other option was to pour another £200 million of tax payers money into the stadium to make it (an average at best) semi mixed use stadium.
 
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed

scaramanga said:
Why would any landlord offer any tenant the ability to veto what they do with their property?

It's certainly not beyond those in the public sector to do something that stupid, but I find the idea unlikely.
Click to expand...

I don't know if West Ham have this veto or not, I've read various differing opinions on this. But as you say this is the public sector, and the OS in particular has been a costly fiasco, annoyingly one that West Ham will benefit out of.
 
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed

If the pikeys dont own the stadium I would doubt that they could tell the landlord what to do

Lets be honest the landlord will be rubbing their hands together at the thought of the stadium being full at least every other week
 
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed

markysimmo said:
If the pikeys dont own the stadium I would doubt that they could tell the landlord what to do

Lets be honest the landlord will be rubbing their hands together at the thought of the stadium being full at least every other week
Click to expand...

That's probably West Ham's main fear, getting completely owned in terms of attendances.
 
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed

Finney Is Back said:
In a way I am happy, as without UK Athletics kicking up such a fuss I think we would now be playing our penultimate season at WHL with a move to Stratford on the horizon. The most laughable argument put forward was that it would've been a huge waste of money to knock down a £700 million stadium (or whatever it cost) so that Spurs could build a new one. Of course with no mention of the fact that the other option was to pour another £200 million of tax payers money into the stadium to make it (an average at best) semi mixed use stadium.
Click to expand...

For a stadium that will need rebuilding in 20 years time
 
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed

Nothing says legacy like a temporary stadium kept for long term use.
 
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed

how far into the dildo brothers 5 year plan are we again?
 
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed

don't think we're in a position to talk about 5 year plans :lol:
 
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed

Why not go back to the partial stadium build idea and plan around it. It makes no difference now anyway as the other clubs are all going to get their stadium aged of us. Of course a one time build costs less, but the other options eg MK Don's come with its own set of costs/disadvantages.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back