-
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
Kenyan Spur
Peter Taylor
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.
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
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.
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.
Spur of the moment
Frederic Kanoute
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.
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.
Denmark Spur
Edgar Davids
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
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
Isn't that the season we're looking for a temporary home?
Isn't that the season we're looking for a temporary home?
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed
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.
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
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.
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.
Kenyan Spur
Peter Taylor
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed
Therefore West Spam can't veto it.
Therefore West Spam can't veto it.
milo
Jack L. Jones
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
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
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)
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)
Finney Is Back
Luka Modric
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.
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.
milo
Jack L. Jones
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed
That is correct
http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/...roves-land-deal-for-tottenham-stadium-scheme/
That is correct
http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/...roves-land-deal-for-tottenham-stadium-scheme/
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.
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.
Finney Is Back
Luka Modric
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.
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.
milo
Jack L. Jones
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'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.
Finney Is Back
Luka Modric
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed
I also doubt there will be any, I just think that it will be the argument used.
I also doubt there will be any, I just think that it will be the argument used.
milo
Jack L. Jones
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway Have Appealed
I am sure that you are right
I am sure that you are right