• 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

I believe in ghosts.

Sent from my GT-N8010 using Fapatalk
 
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed

Not really. They have got a couple of million coming their way from us under the CPO even if they lose.

I thought that the couple of millions of CPO money is what they need to relocate.
If they eat into this money, they may not have enough to start again.
Therefore either they have a sponsor, or are VERY dim.
They can't bet that they will win this case. If they don't, they will lose a chunk of the CPO money that they need to relocate.
 
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed

Yeah it's a mystery alright. I really want an investigative reporting tv program on this case, you know to see who the owners are, how the business is run, and especially their motivation and ambition etc.
 
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed

I thought that the couple of millions of CPO money is what they need to relocate.
If they eat into this money, they may not have enough to start again.
Therefore either they have a sponsor, or are VERY dim.
They can't bet that they will win this case. If they don't, they will lose a chunk of the CPO money that they need to relocate.

Or they have legal expenses insurance, which will normally fund any action or defence where they deem prospects of success to be greater than 50%.

Or a firm has agreed to represent them on a conditional fee arrangement covered by after the event insurance, but again, this is normally where it deems the prospects of success to be more likely than not.
 
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed

Or they have legal expenses insurance, which will normally fund any action or defence where they deem prospects of success to be greater than 50%.

Or a firm has agreed to represent them on a conditional fee arrangement covered by after the event insurance, but again, this is normally where it deems the prospects of success to be more likely than not.

All of which makes you wonder whether Archway's legal team are confident they have spotted some procedural or technical flaw in the appeals process sufficient to invalidate Pickles' CPO decision.

Worrying.




 
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed

Inside Lines: Pressure on Baroness Brady to play ball with Spurs over ground share

A major row is brewing over West Ham’s likely refusal to share the Olympic Stadium with Tottenham Hotspur for a season should the north London club make a formal request to do so while their own new stadium is being built. The London Legacy Development Corporation, with whom the Hammers negotiated a highly favourable 99-year lease from the 2016-17 season, are privately annoyed at the stance taken by the club’s freshly ermined vice-chair, Karren Brady (now Baroness Brady of Knightsbridge), that any such move would be firmly opposed.

Like London’s mayor, Boris Johnson, the Legacy Board are keen to see the largely taxpayer-funded stadium pay its way, and would welcome the income a season of Spurs home matches would attract. One leading figure involved in the original negotiations tells us: “A ground-sharing arrangement for a season seems eminently workable, and profitable. Someone should be reminding West Ham that they need to be flexible on this.”

It was understood West Ham would be able to veto a potential move, even if Tottenham, or any other club, agreed a deal with the Legacy Corporation. But in fact West Ham only have this power of veto for the first season in which they move from Upton Park.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...all-with-spurs-over-ground-share-9775014.html
 
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed

Inside Lines: Pressure on Baroness Brady to play ball with Spurs over ground share

A major row is brewing over West Ham’s likely refusal to share the Olympic Stadium with Tottenham Hotspur for a season should the north London club make a formal request to do so while their own new stadium is being built. The London Legacy Development Corporation, with whom the Hammers negotiated a highly favourable 99-year lease from the 2016-17 season, are privately annoyed at the stance taken by the club’s freshly ermined vice-chair, Karren Brady (now Baroness Brady of Knightsbridge), that any such move would be firmly opposed.

Like London’s mayor, Boris Johnson, the Legacy Board are keen to see the largely taxpayer-funded stadium pay its way, and would welcome the income a season of Spurs home matches would attract. One leading figure involved in the original negotiations tells us: “A ground-sharing arrangement for a season seems eminently workable, and profitable. Someone should be reminding West Ham that they need to be flexible on this.”

It was understood West Ham would be able to veto a potential move, even if Tottenham, or any other club, agreed a deal with the Legacy Corporation. But in fact West Ham only have this power of veto for the first season in which they move from Upton Park.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...all-with-spurs-over-ground-share-9775014.html

Quite right too.

Whether or not Spurs choose to play in the Olympic stadium for a season, it shouldn't be in West Ham's gift.

The stadium is a publicly owned facility, paid for by the taxpayer - of which, there are many more who support Spurs than who support West Ham. It isn't West Ham's property. It would also be quite wrong for West Ham to be able to prevent a publicly owned facility from earning much needed extra revenue.
 
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed

Isn't that the season we're looking for a temporary home?

Nope.

West Ham are due to move in to the Olympic stadium at the beginning of the 2016-17 season.

If Spurs do move out of Tottenham for a season, it will be for the 2017-18 season - West Ham's second season in the stadium.
 
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed

Daniel Levy as I said in a post last week could make Brady and the LLDC look really bad if the club offered three times the rent, and them turning away 1000s of jobs.
 
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed

Nope.

West Ham are due to move in to the Olympic stadium at the beginning of the 2016-17 season.

If Spurs do move out of Tottenham for a season, it will be for the 2017-18 season - West Ham's second season in the stadium.

Therefore West Spam can't veto it. :)
 
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed

All of which makes you wonder whether Archway's legal team are confident they have spotted some procedural or technical flaw in the appeals process sufficient to invalidate Pickles' CPO decision.

Worrying.





I would expect their case to be based on the planning inspector's report recommending that the CPO not be granted
 
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed

I would expect their case to be based on the planning inspector's report recommending that the CPO not be granted

Definately a solid ground for appeal in my book. Certainly not a frivolous appeal. There's strong legal argument that the CPO is not justifiable (not saying that stand point couldn't be defeated in court, just that if I was archway s solicitors I'd be telling them they have good grounds for appeal)
 
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed

I would expect their case to be based on the planning inspector's report recommending that the CPO not be granted

Didn't the planning inspector's report recommend that the CPO be granted only if the original section 26 requirements were reinstated?.... IMO the local authority will argue that the CPO is being served to make improvements to North Tottenham for the community and it matters not to the community whether THFC or the government purse funds some of those improvements.
 
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed

Didn't the planning inspector's report recommend that the CPO be granted only if the original section 26 requirements were reinstated?.... IMO the local authority will argue that the CPO is being served to make improvements to North Tottenham for the community and it matters not to the community whether THFC or the government purse funds some of those improvements.

That is correct

http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/...roves-land-deal-for-tottenham-stadium-scheme/
 
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed

Didn't the planning inspector's report recommend that the CPO be granted only if the original section 26 requirements were reinstated?.... IMO the local authority will argue that the CPO is being served to make improvements to North Tottenham for the community and it matters not to the community whether THFC or the government purse funds some of those improvements.

Good argument. But if I was Archway's solicitors I'd argue that the CPO isn't necessary for the wider regeneration and its only necessary for THFC's stadium, a private project that SOME local residents object to anyway. I'd also argue that wider regeneration of the area can be competed without moving a long standing and successful local business that could be successfully incorporated into the regeneration and that to grant the CPO for the stadium to be built is against the spirit of the CPO process and against the advice of the local planning officers under current terms.
 
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed

Good argument. But if I was Archway's solicitors I'd argue that the CPO isn't necessary for the wider regeneration and its only necessary for THFC's stadium, a private project that SOME local residents object to anyway. I'd also argue that wider regeneration of the area can be competed without moving a long standing and successful local business that could be successfully incorporated into the regeneration and that to grant the CPO for the stadium to be built is against the spirit of the CPO process and against the advice of the local planning officers under current terms.

The counter argument will be that the wider scheme isn't viable without the extra people that the new stadium will bring to the area.... That the THFC stadium development is kick starting the regeneration and vital to attract the investment for the other schemes.
 
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed

The counter argument will be that the wider scheme isn't viable without the extra people that the new stadium will bring to the area.... That the THFC stadium development is kick starting the regeneration and vital to attract the investment for the other schemes.

I'm a little out of date on this but I read a bit about urban regeneration projects based on building sports stadia a few years ago and it was rarely a successful approach. I'm not sure how many benefits there will be for the local community beyond cosmetic improvements.
 
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed

I'm a little out of date on this but I read a bit about urban regeneration projects based on building sports stadia a few years ago and it was rarely a successful approach. I'm not sure how many benefits there will be for the local community beyond cosmetic improvements.

I also doubt there will be any, I just think that it will be the argument used.
 
Back