• 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

mouville said:
They will have to think very carefully about taking this to the Court of Appeal. This High Court Judge has examined the evidence and concluded it was without merit in any way whatsoever. No wriggle room. He has turned down the prospect of advancing an appeal through his Court so Archway's QC will have to find fault with this High Court Judge's deliberations to apply to the Court of Appeal. If they try it they will face paying all costs which will ruin them.
Click to expand...

I can see the court of appeal rejecting any application anyway. I'm actual surprised at their case. I thought that to take it to the High Court they'd have some kind of substantive argument but they didn't. I think like I said that they hoped some golden ticket would come out in the document disclosure but it never did. All that came out was a fully ratified private and public urban regeneration with full planning consideration and most of the funding elements already secured.
 
NWND said:
I can see the court of appeal rejecting any application anyway. I'm actual surprised at their case. I thought that to take it to the High Court they'd have some kind of substantive argument but they didn't. I think like I said that they hoped some golden ticket would come out in the document disclosure but it never did. All that came out was a fully ratified private and public urban regeneration with full planning consideration and most of the funding elements already secured.
Click to expand...

Agreed, it'd hard to see that the court of appeal would hear their case
 
tumblr_nfxccu0RSM1r08o57o1_500.gif
 
Devils advocate...

You are part of a CPO but dont want to go
Your told you must go
Your threatened
Somebody from the opposite side Burns down your company
Plenty of people will be supporting them, telling them its nasty rich people getting rid of poor people in the area

You could easily convince yourself and be surrounded by people who say you must fight.
 
and to set peoples expectations they will be appealing. it will be in 20 days although i have no idea on the timescales the court of appeal will take.

As soon as the judgement was reached they appealed which means A) they have the money to fight B) they if granted the appeal would have done so.



I think if we end up with a new ground at the same place (which we will) will be the biggest achievement of any club in last 50yrs.
Arsenal, City and West Ham have had life handed on a silver plater
 
imcallingbullsh*t said:
and to set peoples expectations they will be appealing. it will be in 20 days although i have no idea on the timescales the court of appeal will take.

As soon as the judgement was reached they appealed which means A) they have the money to fight B) they if granted the appeal would have done so.



I think if we end up with a new ground at the same place (which we will) will be the biggest achievement of any club in last 50yrs.
Arsenal, City and West Ham have had life handed on a silver plater
Click to expand...

Arsenal didn't have it handed to them they spent best part of a decade paying back debt on their stadium and are only now reaping the rewards in being able to spend huge amounts.

City only rent the stadium so they don't get all of the revenue.

West Ham are in a similar position and neither Eitihad or Oympic Stadium are purpose built football stadiums. I think the atmosphere at the Etihad is a bit flat even for big games.

Oympic stadium is leased to West Ham because Levy did what Archway did and fought the government and Newham council tooth and nail, only while our process has proven to be whiter than white in the document disclosure, Levy managed to uncover some pretty dodgy goings on in the award of the stadium to West Ham for no rational reason (West Ham's bid required £40m public money spent yo convert the stadium whereas our bid was privately funded in its entirety). I think we found something like one of the decision committee members was doing work on the sly for West Ham and banging one of their directors. We were successful in an application for a judicial review of the bidding process and award to West Ham and I think a lot of brick was going to go down but the government stepped in and decided to retain the stadium in public ownership and lease it to West Ham in exchange for us and Leyton orient dropping the judicial review.

Massive decision as the stadium won't be a fraction as lucrative for the hammers as if they owned it. They'll have to pay to rent the stadium won't get full control of corporate hospitality and ticketing, won't get any money from any stadium sponsorship or naming rights deals or concerts and events and can't borrow against the land and stadium if required in future.
 
OK, I'm knackered and I've just scanned the last 15 pages or so, but unless I'm missing something, that's a whole lot of good news. Am I right in thinking...
  1. The CPO is effectively approved, and although Archway can technically lodge a further appeal, they've been publicly told by the judge that it's got no chance of succeeding.
  2. "Official documents" suggest the stadium naming rights are in place.
  3. "Official documents" confirm that we are serious about increasing the capacity to 61k.
Is the nightmare finally at an end?
 
NWND said:
Massive decision as the stadium won't be a fraction as lucrative for the hammers as if they owned it. They'll have to pay to rent the stadium won't get full control of corporate hospitality and ticketing, won't get any money from any stadium sponsorship or naming rights deals or concerts and events and can't borrow against the land and stadium if required in future.
Click to expand...

And they're stuck with a GHod-awful running track for how long? 100 years?

I didn't know that about concerts.. so they're not exclusive tenants then? Does that mean it's not actually their decision if we have a ground-share with them for a season?
 
DublinSpur said:
OK, I'm knackered and I've just scanned the last 15 pages or so, but unless I'm missing something, that's a whole lot of good news. Am I right in thinking...
  1. The CPO is effectively approved, and although Archway can technically lodge a further appeal, they've been publicly told by the judge that it's got no chance of succeeding.
  2. "Official documents" suggest the stadium naming rights are in place.
  3. "Official documents" confirm that we are serious about increasing the capacity to 61k.
Is the nightmare finally at an end?
Click to expand...

Don't count your chickens just yet but in a way yes, potentially.

The reason why the club released the statement they did is because it's only over when Archway actually move out, I personally wouldn't start celebrating until they finally make announcement that they've given up. As for the new 61,000 capacity the judge deemed the idea to only be in it's early stages but that doesn't mean the club don't want to press ahead with them.
 
Last edited:
7percent said:
And they're stuck with a GHod-awful running track for how long? 100 years?

I didn't know that about concerts.. so they're not exclusive tenants then? Does that mean it's not actually their decision if we have a ground-share with them for a season?
Click to expand...

I believe that they have a veto in the first season but after that they have no say.
 
61,061 capacity, the first stadium with a rooftop viewing area/bar/restaurant for fans as part of a refreshed iconic stadium design, and the Olympic Stadium for a season while its built. Get it done DL.
 
Last edited:
Could be.......

Along the Populous vision, the new stadium is to be enclosed in a futuristic outer form. Parts of the external cladding will be opaque, but majority will be openwork and allowing display of images and colours, while also providing sufficient light access inside and ventilation.

21bel4.jpg


An interesting feature is leading the upper promenade outside the façade, making it a viewing deck with a great view of Brussels skyline, primarily the nearby Atomium tower.

Parking sites are to be partly incorporated into the stadium’s podium (with most of its space reserved for commercial use), but the scheme also envisages retaining large portions of the existing Parking C.
 
If the upfront cost is not too prohibitive, the value to the Club and Enic of investing an extra 30 to £100m in an iconic stadium makes perfect sense. Its a large amount of extra cash up front, but the value of being the most distinctive stadium in the capital - year on year - makes it a no brainer. If you can put an accessible roof top in with views and additional revenue streeams the extra cost will be soon paid back in publicity, excitement, distinction, increased revenue, increased sponsorship and advertising etc. An, inevitably more expensive, iconic stadium makes financial sense and would put our rivals in the shade.
 
NWND said:
Arsenal didn't have it handed to them they spent best part of a decade paying back debt on their stadium and are only now reaping the rewards in being able to spend huge amounts.

City only rent the stadium so they don't get all of the revenue.

West Ham are in a similar position and neither Eitihad or Oympic Stadium are purpose built football stadiums. I think the atmosphere at the Etihad is a bit flat even for big games.

Oympic stadium is leased to West Ham because Levy did what Archway did and fought the government and Newham council tooth and nail, only while our process has proven to be whiter than white in the document disclosure, Levy managed to uncover some pretty dodgy goings on in the award of the stadium to West Ham for no rational reason (West Ham's bid required £40m public money spent yo convert the stadium whereas our bid was privately funded in its entirety). I think we found something like one of the decision committee members was doing work on the sly for West Ham and banging one of their directors. We were successful in an application for a judicial review of the bidding process and award to West Ham and I think a lot of crud was going to go down but the government stepped in and decided to retain the stadium in public ownership and lease it to West Ham in exchange for us and Leyton orient dropping the judicial review.

Massive decision as the stadium won't be a fraction as lucrative for the hammers as if they owned it. They'll have to pay to rent the stadium won't get full control of corporate hospitality and ticketing, won't get any money from any stadium sponsorship or naming rights deals or concerts and events and can't borrow against the land and stadium if required in future.
Click to expand...

Wow I'm astounded with that detail about the Spammers. You have to ask with those conditions why the hell did they decide to go ahead and move? What the hell do they actually get out of it when you look at it like that?
It sounds to me like they are effectively homeless :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back