-
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
Denmark Spur
Michael Carrick
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed
New Stadium Update
The Club can confirm that dates for the High Court hearing, in respect of the challenge by Archway Sheet Metal Works Ltd and the Josif Family of the Secretary of State's decision on the CPO, have now been set.
The hearing will take place on 15 and 16 January 2015.
We shall continue to keep fans updated.
http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/news/new-stadium-update-151014/
New Stadium Update
The Club can confirm that dates for the High Court hearing, in respect of the challenge by Archway Sheet Metal Works Ltd and the Josif Family of the Secretary of State's decision on the CPO, have now been set.
The hearing will take place on 15 and 16 January 2015.
We shall continue to keep fans updated.
http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/news/new-stadium-update-151014/
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed
Better than expected.
But even if the High Court decision also goes against them, Archway's actions thus far suggest that they will continue the fight in the Court of Appeal. That could delay construction by maybe as much as a further six months.
And if that goes against them, they might try the European Court of Human Rights as a last resort - though I'm not entirely certain that the ECHR would find their case to be admissible.
Better than expected.
But even if the High Court decision also goes against them, Archway's actions thus far suggest that they will continue the fight in the Court of Appeal. That could delay construction by maybe as much as a further six months.
And if that goes against them, they might try the European Court of Human Rights as a last resort - though I'm not entirely certain that the ECHR would find their case to be admissible.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed
That's very quick/soon compared to how long these things usually take. A sign of political pressure being applied perhaps?
You can only appeal to the Court of Appeal if you get permission from the High Court to do so - parties aren't automatically eligible (since 2000). And they need to have "a real prospect of success" or "some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard"
That's very quick/soon compared to how long these things usually take. A sign of political pressure being applied perhaps?
You can only appeal to the Court of Appeal if you get permission from the High Court to do so - parties aren't automatically eligible (since 2000). And they need to have "a real prospect of success" or "some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard"
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed
They're going to do anything they can to drag this out and every step adds another few weeks/months, regardless of whether their appeals eligible or realistic.
I do think there's a slight possibility that building can start some time in 2015. Fingers crossed.
They're going to do anything they can to drag this out and every step adds another few weeks/months, regardless of whether their appeals eligible or realistic.
I do think there's a slight possibility that building can start some time in 2015. Fingers crossed.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed
It's in the interests of the entire justice system not to let that happen, otherwise everyone would be making frivolous appeals all over the place.
The businesses opposed to Ashburton Grove all gave up at the High Court stage because it was made clear how futile and financially crippling for them further actions would be.
It's in the interests of the entire justice system not to let that happen, otherwise everyone would be making frivolous appeals all over the place.
The businesses opposed to Ashburton Grove all gave up at the High Court stage because it was made clear how futile and financially crippling for them further actions would be.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed
The Mail are running a story that we're just about to finalise the deal to groundshare with MK Dons (with 3 games PA at Wembley): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...-play-three-premier-league-games-wembley.html
The Mail are running a story that we're just about to finalise the deal to groundshare with MK Dons (with 3 games PA at Wembley): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...-play-three-premier-league-games-wembley.html
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed
I guess it might depend on how finely balanced the decision is. This legal action wont be cheap for the company and its also a distraction for their management team - there cant be much benefit from holding on if the High Court ruling is outright dismissive of their case. If they were hoping that this action would have caused us to buy them off then I think that outcome has done away - we'd have done that by now if Levy was minded to do so
I guess it might depend on how finely balanced the decision is. This legal action wont be cheap for the company and its also a distraction for their management team - there cant be much benefit from holding on if the High Court ruling is outright dismissive of their case. If they were hoping that this action would have caused us to buy them off then I think that outcome has done away - we'd have done that by now if Levy was minded to do so
jts1882
Dean Richards
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed
I can't see how we can finalise any temporary groundshare without knowing when or if we need it. Archway could win their appeal or more likely drag it on with further appeals. We can't be sure which season we will need an alternative home. I'd be more inclined to believe a story that was about provisional deals and tentative time-frames.
I can't see how we can finalise any temporary groundshare without knowing when or if we need it. Archway could win their appeal or more likely drag it on with further appeals. We can't be sure which season we will need an alternative home. I'd be more inclined to believe a story that was about provisional deals and tentative time-frames.
Finney Is Back
Luka Modric
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed
My guess (and it is just that) is that the Josif family will make a deal with us if they fail with this challenge..... The likelyhood of them winning reduces with every verdict that goes against them. Additionally each verdict that goes against them takes them closer and closer to only receiving the CPO valuation for their premises (which will be a vast amount lower than deals that THFC will already have offered them).
In the event of them losing this appeal then I think the only question will be whether THFC decide that their previous offers no longer stand and instead they'll be prepared to see things through all the way. IMO, while that might be the best thing to do in order to punish the Josifs for their greed, it probably makes no sense in terms of publicilty or delays to the scheme.
I'm sure that both THFC and Archway have already received some independent valuation quotes, so both sides will then be looking at those quotes if and when talks resume after this appeal. In the meantime we just all have to hope that the appeal does not find in favour of the Josifs/Archway.
My guess (and it is just that) is that the Josif family will make a deal with us if they fail with this challenge..... The likelyhood of them winning reduces with every verdict that goes against them. Additionally each verdict that goes against them takes them closer and closer to only receiving the CPO valuation for their premises (which will be a vast amount lower than deals that THFC will already have offered them).
In the event of them losing this appeal then I think the only question will be whether THFC decide that their previous offers no longer stand and instead they'll be prepared to see things through all the way. IMO, while that might be the best thing to do in order to punish the Josifs for their greed, it probably makes no sense in terms of publicilty or delays to the scheme.
I'm sure that both THFC and Archway have already received some independent valuation quotes, so both sides will then be looking at those quotes if and when talks resume after this appeal. In the meantime we just all have to hope that the appeal does not find in favour of the Josifs/Archway.
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed
Apparently, Wembley's Operations Director initially helped set up and manage our new training ground. That must have some influence on discussions .
Apparently, Wembley's Operations Director initially helped set up and manage our new training ground. That must have some influence on discussions .
Finney Is Back
Luka Modric
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed
In that Mail article it says there are no rules against playing games at two different venues?.... That seems to be in contradiction to what I have read elsewhere (perhaps even on here?) I thought there was a PL rule where teams had to play all of their home games at the same venue?
In that Mail article it says there are no rules against playing games at two different venues?.... That seems to be in contradiction to what I have read elsewhere (perhaps even on here?) I thought there was a PL rule where teams had to play all of their home games at the same venue?
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed
The rules don't actually say outright that a club can't register more than one home ground. As most other things it's up to the PL to approve it I guess.
If you're not playing in a stadium you own yourself there are some rules regarding any ground share agreements and priorities and such. Basically, you can't risk getting kicked out mid-season. Once the season starts you're stuck with the venue(s) you've registered. You can't suddenly decide to change your home venue because you got a better deal elsewhere or something.
The rules don't actually say outright that a club can't register more than one home ground. As most other things it's up to the PL to approve it I guess.
If you're not playing in a stadium you own yourself there are some rules regarding any ground share agreements and priorities and such. Basically, you can't risk getting kicked out mid-season. Once the season starts you're stuck with the venue(s) you've registered. You can't suddenly decide to change your home venue because you got a better deal elsewhere or something.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed
It will be sorted long before 2016/17 (the proposed sharing season). Whatever happens Archway aren't going to remain on the site. They are either going to get the CPO independent valuation for the site and heavy legal costs to pay (98% likely) or Haringey will have to pay them a premium for the site.
We've already signed a £50m contract with a building contractor too remember.
The CPO valuation is an independent valuation (with an uplift). There's no way we'll offer them anything other than that after they've played silly buggers for 7 years.
It will be sorted long before 2016/17 (the proposed sharing season). Whatever happens Archway aren't going to remain on the site. They are either going to get the CPO independent valuation for the site and heavy legal costs to pay (98% likely) or Haringey will have to pay them a premium for the site.
We've already signed a £50m contract with a building contractor too remember.
The CPO valuation is an independent valuation (with an uplift). There's no way we'll offer them anything other than that after they've played silly buggers for 7 years.
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed
The official New Stadium Update on the Club's website on 10th September stated:
"Given the lengthy period of time taken to reach the CPO decision in the first place, we should like to advise supporters that it is highly unlikely we shall be able to open the new Stadium at the start of the 2017/2018 season.
The Club has revised its construction programme in order to take the shortest possible time to construct. This now therefore involves the Club moving away from the Lane during construction for a period of one season, to start at the beginning of a season in order to comply with Premier League rules."
I interpreted that to mean that the proposed sharing season was 2017-18 rather than 2016-17, unless of course the Club were forced to share for more than one season.
The relevant Premier league Rules appear to be:
"Ownership of Ground and Training Facilities
K.3. Each Club shall either own its Stadium and training facilities or have a legally enforceable
agreement with its owner for its use by the Club, expiring not earlier than the end of the
current Season.
Ground Sharing
K.4. No Club shall have or enter into a ground-sharing agreement unless the agreement contains
a legally enforceable provision to the effect that the playing of the Club’s League Matches
shall always take precedence over the activities of the other party to the agreement.
Ground Registration
K.5. Each Club shall register its Stadium with the Secretary and no Club shall remove to another
Stadium without first obtaining the written consent of the Board, such consent not to be
unreasonably withheld.
K.6. In considering whether to give any such consent, the Board shall have regard to
all the circumstances of the case and shall not consent unless reasonably satisfied that
such consent:
K.6.1. would be consistent with the objects of the League as set out in the Memorandum;
K.6.2. would be appropriate having in mind the relationship (if any) between the locality
with which by its name or otherwise the applicant Club is traditionally associated
and that in which such Club proposes to establish its Stadium;
K.6.3. would not adversely affect such Club’s Officials, Players, supporters, shareholders,
sponsors and others having an interest in its activities;
K.6.4. would not have an adverse effect on Visiting Clubs;
K.6.5. would not adversely affect Clubs (or Football League clubs) having their registered
grounds in the immediate vicinity of the proposed location;
and
K.6.6. would enhance the reputation of the League and promote the game of association
football generally."
My interpretation of K3 and K5 is that only one stadium can be used in any one season, and that the stadium has to be used for a whole season.
My interpretation of K4 is that if Tottenham share with anyone else, Tottenham's games have to take priority over anyone else at the stadium. I can see this being a problem at Wembley, the Olympic Stadium, the Emirates, and probably The MK Stadium, though not Upton Park.
I can see K6.2 as a problem to be overcome as the Club's name includes "Tottenham" and its location is Tottenham.
I can see K6.3 being a problem, particularly if the MK Stadium is used, as it can't fail to have a negative effect on the supporters of the Club.
I am not saying that these problems are insurmountable, but that they exist. Others may disagree with my interpretations in any event.
The official New Stadium Update on the Club's website on 10th September stated:
"Given the lengthy period of time taken to reach the CPO decision in the first place, we should like to advise supporters that it is highly unlikely we shall be able to open the new Stadium at the start of the 2017/2018 season.
The Club has revised its construction programme in order to take the shortest possible time to construct. This now therefore involves the Club moving away from the Lane during construction for a period of one season, to start at the beginning of a season in order to comply with Premier League rules."
I interpreted that to mean that the proposed sharing season was 2017-18 rather than 2016-17, unless of course the Club were forced to share for more than one season.
The relevant Premier league Rules appear to be:
"Ownership of Ground and Training Facilities
K.3. Each Club shall either own its Stadium and training facilities or have a legally enforceable
agreement with its owner for its use by the Club, expiring not earlier than the end of the
current Season.
Ground Sharing
K.4. No Club shall have or enter into a ground-sharing agreement unless the agreement contains
a legally enforceable provision to the effect that the playing of the Club’s League Matches
shall always take precedence over the activities of the other party to the agreement.
Ground Registration
K.5. Each Club shall register its Stadium with the Secretary and no Club shall remove to another
Stadium without first obtaining the written consent of the Board, such consent not to be
unreasonably withheld.
K.6. In considering whether to give any such consent, the Board shall have regard to
all the circumstances of the case and shall not consent unless reasonably satisfied that
such consent:
K.6.1. would be consistent with the objects of the League as set out in the Memorandum;
K.6.2. would be appropriate having in mind the relationship (if any) between the locality
with which by its name or otherwise the applicant Club is traditionally associated
and that in which such Club proposes to establish its Stadium;
K.6.3. would not adversely affect such Club’s Officials, Players, supporters, shareholders,
sponsors and others having an interest in its activities;
K.6.4. would not have an adverse effect on Visiting Clubs;
K.6.5. would not adversely affect Clubs (or Football League clubs) having their registered
grounds in the immediate vicinity of the proposed location;
and
K.6.6. would enhance the reputation of the League and promote the game of association
football generally."
My interpretation of K3 and K5 is that only one stadium can be used in any one season, and that the stadium has to be used for a whole season.
My interpretation of K4 is that if Tottenham share with anyone else, Tottenham's games have to take priority over anyone else at the stadium. I can see this being a problem at Wembley, the Olympic Stadium, the Emirates, and probably The MK Stadium, though not Upton Park.
I can see K6.2 as a problem to be overcome as the Club's name includes "Tottenham" and its location is Tottenham.
I can see K6.3 being a problem, particularly if the MK Stadium is used, as it can't fail to have a negative effect on the supporters of the Club.
I am not saying that these problems are insurmountable, but that they exist. Others may disagree with my interpretations in any event.
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed
I can see K6.3 being a problem, particularly if the MK Stadium is used, as it can't fail to have a negative effect on the supporters of the Club.
Manchester United playing their games in the Greater Manchester area doesn't seem to constitute enough of an adversity... :-"
It's the second part of K5 that matters IMO. Anything can be done as long as you get PL approval.
I can see K6.3 being a problem, particularly if the MK Stadium is used, as it can't fail to have a negative effect on the supporters of the Club.
Manchester United playing their games in the Greater Manchester area doesn't seem to constitute enough of an adversity... :-"
It's the second part of K5 that matters IMO. Anything can be done as long as you get PL approval.
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed
How would that be a problem? If MK Dons are going to agree for us to share their ground then they'll consent to waive this clause!
How would that be a problem? If MK Dons are going to agree for us to share their ground then they'll consent to waive this clause!
Finney Is Back
Luka Modric
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed
I don't think you have thought things through here at all.... If Archway continue to appeal (to the High court and then perhaps all the way to the European court) then the issue could easily take another 12 to 18 months to resolve. Every year that we are delayed in building our new stadium is likely to cost us around £30 million (and perhaps more when you factor in revenue from stadium naming rights). Therefore if the CPO valuation is £2 million but we agree to pay £5 million we are potentially £27 million better off as opposed to £3 million worse off. This is just considering the financials. Remember that there is also a chance at every stage that the court will find in favour of the Josifs, guarding against that would also be worth some sort of premium.
All decisions made in respect to our stadium have to be based on sound business logic and not sentiment.
I don't think you have thought things through here at all.... If Archway continue to appeal (to the High court and then perhaps all the way to the European court) then the issue could easily take another 12 to 18 months to resolve. Every year that we are delayed in building our new stadium is likely to cost us around £30 million (and perhaps more when you factor in revenue from stadium naming rights). Therefore if the CPO valuation is £2 million but we agree to pay £5 million we are potentially £27 million better off as opposed to £3 million worse off. This is just considering the financials. Remember that there is also a chance at every stage that the court will find in favour of the Josifs, guarding against that would also be worth some sort of premium.
All decisions made in respect to our stadium have to be based on sound business logic and not sentiment.
Last edited:
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed
That's my view as well, that until the Archway biz is resolved how can we have a time scale for a ground share?
If/when it does happen I hope it's at the OS with West Ham, as I think that's the best way forward for that one season, maybe two if things go wrong, which is surely possible.
Incidentally, one of the things I did agree with ENIC was that our best option was to build our new stadium at Stratford. All those people who protested and said we must stay in Tottenham, I wonder if any have changed their feelings now considering the problems the NDP has had, and that we surely would have finished the stadium at Stratford long before we do at the 'new Lane'.
Of course, it turns out the club were played as mugs in order to get us to bid for the OS when we had no real chance of winning. Thus allowing West Ham an easy win over us that they've milked for years now, and will be loving it when they have a new stadium and we're where? Who knows, not me.
14 years ago ENIC took over this club, 14 years later we have no more capacity than we did then. It's almost for sure now that sometime in 2017 West Ham will have a bigger stadium than us, so we will have slipped to fourth biggest stadium in London football, as well as third biggest club in London under ENIC. Indeed in the medium term outlook, it's my guess we'll be more likely fighting off West Ham to hang on to our '3rd biggest' tag, rather than challenging Arsenal or Chelsea for second biggest, assuming we're still with ENIC that is.
That's my view as well, that until the Archway biz is resolved how can we have a time scale for a ground share?
If/when it does happen I hope it's at the OS with West Ham, as I think that's the best way forward for that one season, maybe two if things go wrong, which is surely possible.
Incidentally, one of the things I did agree with ENIC was that our best option was to build our new stadium at Stratford. All those people who protested and said we must stay in Tottenham, I wonder if any have changed their feelings now considering the problems the NDP has had, and that we surely would have finished the stadium at Stratford long before we do at the 'new Lane'.
Of course, it turns out the club were played as mugs in order to get us to bid for the OS when we had no real chance of winning. Thus allowing West Ham an easy win over us that they've milked for years now, and will be loving it when they have a new stadium and we're where? Who knows, not me.
14 years ago ENIC took over this club, 14 years later we have no more capacity than we did then. It's almost for sure now that sometime in 2017 West Ham will have a bigger stadium than us, so we will have slipped to fourth biggest stadium in London football, as well as third biggest club in London under ENIC. Indeed in the medium term outlook, it's my guess we'll be more likely fighting off West Ham to hang on to our '3rd biggest' tag, rather than challenging Arsenal or Chelsea for second biggest, assuming we're still with ENIC that is.
jts1882
Dean Richards
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed
My reading of this is that a club probably would be allowed to move to a new stadium mid-season.
The rule is to ensure clubs can fulfil fixtures and to prevent clubs moving premium games to another stadium. So if we registered WHL for the season but finished building a new one mid-season, the PL could allow a move to the new stadium. Our case is a bit more complicated, but I see no reason why the rules would not allow mid-season moves either to another stadium to allow redevelopment of WHL or to the new stadium when it is finished.
Not upsetting the natives seems a bigger problem.
My reading of this is that a club probably would be allowed to move to a new stadium mid-season.
The rule is to ensure clubs can fulfil fixtures and to prevent clubs moving premium games to another stadium. So if we registered WHL for the season but finished building a new one mid-season, the PL could allow a move to the new stadium. Our case is a bit more complicated, but I see no reason why the rules would not allow mid-season moves either to another stadium to allow redevelopment of WHL or to the new stadium when it is finished.
Not upsetting the natives seems a bigger problem.