Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Spurs Rage about Dirty Tottenham but Refuse to Contribute to Keeping it Clean
Confidential memos, seen by the Guardian, from senior figures in Haringey Council, highlight Spurs’ complaints that excessive levels of litter and fly-tipping in Tottenham will have a negative impact on the image of the club and its newly built stadium.
Tottenham is the 11th richest club in the world, and has invested £850m in building its new stadium on the site of the old White Hart Lane ground, but have reportedly refused to pay for a clean-up of the surrounding area.
One memo, as reported by the Guardian, written following a meeting between club officials and the council, states: “Spurs were very dismissive as to the current state/appearance of Tottenham and implied that this was not an acceptable environment for their new stadium and supporters.”
Another notes: “Spurs as you may be aware quite an aggressive operator [sic]. When the question of all the extra cleaning needed was raised and who would fund it it was made very clear that it would not be paid for by Spurs.”
According to another memo, Spurs are also demanding the council pay £500,000 to resurface part of Tottenham High Road that leads to the ground “as its appearance is detrimental to the street scene around the stadium”.
This has unsurprisingly angered locals, who have accused the club of being insensitive towards its local community which has a multitude of austerity-driven problems.
It would cost an estimated £8,000 to clean the streets after every match or event held in the ground, which Spurs could easily afford given they make an annual turnover of £306m, with a £58m profit.
One senior Labour councillor, who did not wish to be named, told the Observer: “With bigger crowds and more events, extra cleaning is going to be required around the stadium. It’s only fair that Spurs pay for it because they will be generating increased income compared to what they made at their old White Hart Lane ground.”
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
But that how it was sold Kotkas. That’s why terraces of cottages occupied by miners and their families were compulsorily purchased, why rows of small, locally owned shops and pubs demolished, why a neighbourhood library and primary school were laid to rubble, why a new road was built and a Metro Station refurbished at the public expense that are only used on match days. It was all going to be so much better. What the people living there now have is precisely nothing except a very long walk to the nearest supermarket (even the local buses were rerouted to stop at the ground rather than where people live) while SAFC have some rather valuable real estate and a sports complex they own that no one local can afford the membership fee for. The grand predictions for regeneration from developments like the Spurs ground are rolled out again and again but I just don’t see the evidence of delivery.
-
Permalink Reply by Charlie on
-
The only good thing a stadium brings to an area is an eerie silence when not in use especially in a big noisy place like London... maybe that's what contributes to house price increases as the spectacle of disrespectful crowds pissing where they want and chucking their rubbish everywhere certainly doesnt
-
Permalink Reply by Rory on
-
There is, of course, a method to find out, empirically, the economic impact of the stadium: ask the local businesses. They've been without the income generated by Spurs fans for a year now, so will have a really good idea of what the business contributes to the local community/economy. Have traders gone out of business in the past year through lack of fan foot fall? Are they hanging on by their fingertips until fans return to White Hart Lane? This is complicated though, eh? To be honest, I can see both sides. As someone commented, Spurs fans clearly haven't contributed to a year's worth of fly tippling and standing refuse in the area, but also, Spurs plc should contribute to cleaning up the litter the fans they have attracted to the stadium inevitably drop. It's difficult to promote their community credentials, otherwise. Finally, to suggest Spurs have shown loyalty in regenerating the stadium is a bit silly. They wanted to leave Tottenham high and dry and move to the Olympic Stadium and it was only politicking which prevented this. Instead, West Ham dropped their (incredibly deprived) corner of London like a hot potato when their frankly incredible deal was announced. (They, of course, redeveloped the old stadium into luxury flats.) I guess it's problematic charging fans multiple thousands of pounds for a season ticket in your £850m stadium if the area's all grubby and whatnot.
-
-
That's without mentioning the less than 5% of the £7m cost of policing Premier League matches that the clubs contribute, as legally they are only obliged to pay for policing inside their stadiums. This is, of course, met by the taxpayer. Spurs are quite happy to hand Tottenham's tax payers the bill for this, then complain when the environs are dirty.
-
-
When football was actually a sport for the masses this was probably ok as a public spend... These days it's as exclusive as a regatta or horsey event and as such should pay it's way more I reckon ... especially with profits as large as 42 M per year
-
-
"extra cleaning" required. The council should start by ensuring it's basic cleaning mandate is achieved and then see if any "extra cleaning" is required. It's not just Tottenham that's bad. It's the entire borough. No.1 in flytipping. All down to residents. If you want change you use your vote. Our new new Lib Dem councillors are really listening and have helped keep our street cleaner than it ever was. Unfortunately within a few days you already see litter back on the street.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Please let's try to bring some balance into this discussion.
Nobody - or nobody I've spoken to - argues that Spurs is responsible for the costs of cleaning the entire borough. Nor the whole of Tottenham. Nor the whole of North East Tottenham around the ground.
I've heard nobody sensible suggest that Haringey doesn't have a serious dumping and litter problem. (Well, there was a period when the previous Leader said something absurd on these lines.)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanstanton/32998651014/
Claims about how many millions of pounds are bought into the area or how many jobs are created can be argued without any agreement being reached because one side of the argument believes and the other side are sceptics. I'm one of the latter.
But I may be wrong. Very wrong. And for sake of the people who, like me, live within walking distance, I hope I will be proved wrong. Though it'll be too late to do much about it if I am proved right and if our spineless gullible Spurs-loving Council leadership don't stand-up to this big powerful business and seek to use what little power local councils still retain to strike the best bargain with the club. (Most of these so-called leaders, by the way, live in houses up on hills far away from the ground.)
But all that is not the present point. It is a far simpler point: that Spurs have agreed to pay for a clean-up after matches and other events, and it seems are now saying they don't wish to.
-
Permalink Reply by Zena Brabazon on
-
Can I add some simple facts here, with apologies for coming late to this discussion. Litter clearance and street cleaning after matches are part of the Section 106 agreement which forms part of the planning permission for the stadium. This can be found on the planning website -HGY/2015/3000. The s106 can be found at the bottom of the immensely long list of documents. Schedule 18 of the S106 specifies that Spurs must prepare a Local Area Management Plan - fondly called the LAMP. This document covers traffic management, station access, bus diversions, road closures etc etc.Included in the Schedule and the LAMP is the requirement to clean up litter. It seems clear that although Spurs are moaning about the paying, and claiming they shouldn't have to, the s106 is clear - it is part of the deal.
The stadium is now built so I don't think Spurs can play the old 'we're going to leave' card, and the LAMP must be sorted before games can be played. Let's hope the Council leadership stands firm!!
Zena
Zena Brabazon
Cllr, Harringay ward
-
Permalink Reply by JHauptman on
-
Valid points , Alan.
It's interesting to note how so many prejudices and cognitive biases can be brought to the fore by this one issue.
We have the argument that "they can afford it, so should pay" being proffered. It fails at every logical hurdle an is most commonly heard from the likes of shoplifters and insurance fraudsters.
Then we have some attempts to question or qualify the "economic benefit" of stadia to local communities as if the idiosyncrasies of each development weren't greater than the commonalities.
Then comes a tangental (but overtly racist) insight into "the Chinese" and their their motivation in investing. "A recent example has been Chinese money. Many 'recipients' who thought they were on to a sure fire winner have found that the Chinese are interested only in their own returns. The wise, like the new Malaysian Government, have cancelled previously arranged investments."
An attempt to "Brexplain" the decision to allow the development follows. "It was sold as..". As if qualified bureaucrats within the Council and self-interested Councillors were duped by the cunning football club. They weren't duped. They knew exactly what they were doing. How many of the councillors and Planning or Regeneration staff who were involved in the decision are now in the employ of the private sector?
Then came the assumptions that Spurs might have gone to the Olympic Stadium site. Ridiculous and never an option. Beyond the awful terms of that deal, the swathes of land bought by Spurs and Daniel Levy around White Hart lane made that a non-starter.
In my view, the key issue here is the quid pro quo of the transaction with Spurs. The Council has bent over backwards to accommodate Daniel Levy and the club. There has been very little push-back from the Council. But when it did happen, Daniel went straight to the media to make his case. The only real instance where the Council put up a fight was on behalf of their Cannes and HDV chums Lendlease (in order to win the High Road West development). You think Cllr and bureaucrats' jobs weren't tied up in that?
Spurs have failed their neighbours, fans and business partners throughout the flawed development of their stadium. They are already a full year overdue on completion and the tone of their discourse ought to be apologetic, not antagonistic.
The ridiculously accommodative 24hr building rights granted by the Council have caused a massive burden on surrounding residents and businesses. Just one small example of the 'goodwill' shown by our malleable Council.
Momentum Council Leader and friend of Daniel Levy, Cllr Joe Ejiofor, is quite able to withdraw the favours afforded Spurs. At the very least he should be using them in any negotiation with the club. He clearly isn't because a normal 8am-6pm building works requirement would have already financially crippled them. Joe has an end-game and oddly enough, it doesn't look much like Socialism.
Ultimately, given the embarrassing riches of support the Council has given Spurs, the very least they can do is clean up the streets. And given the extended and hugely damaging financial and physical effect they've had on the high street, they should re-pave it themselves.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Thank you for your viewpoint, but allow me challenge a couple of the antagonistic observations made in your lofty opening paragraphs.
From an initial reading of the individual points and the context of your whole reply, it's not completely clear which points you're taking issue with, but it's evident that at least in one case you're in disagreement with what I've written. So I'll respond to what I think you're saying.
We have the argument that "they can afford it, so should pay" being proffered. It fails at every logical hurdle an is most commonly heard from the likes of shoplifters and insurance fraudsters.
I'm not sure that anyone has explicitly said or implied anything so simplistic. The logic that I am following, as I suspect are the others who espoused a similar viewpoint, is more to do with the reciprocity that should be involved with corporate operations.
When companies set up in any neighbourhood or country, most societies work on the basis that they should offer benefits to the local community in return for the profits they make by operating there. This is formally recognised at the national level by the tax system. Companies that seek to dodge these expectations are almost universally abhorred. At the national level, take the recent episodes with Amazon and Google as examples.
At a more local level, formal reciprocal expectations are represented by business rates as well as the S106 and CIL arrangements that business make with local government.
The principle of reciprocity is ingrained in the way that we as communities trade with businesses. The bigger the business the higher the expectations. I wholeheartedly endorse that.
Beyond the formal reciprocity, there has grown up a tradition of informal or voluntary reciprocity by businesses; that is a series of things that the businesses offer or are asked to do beyond what's legally required of them as a minimum. These are very important because, like the making or withholding of discretionary effort on a personal level, they send out strong messages about the nature of a business and the relationship it wants with a community.
As far as I'm concerned, what's been raised here has been a mix of Spurs' failing in both the formal and informal elements of reciprocity. They're failing the test of formal reciprocity by, as I understand it, dodging previously made commitments about cleaning up around the stadium. They're failing at the informal level by refusing to go further than they absolutely have to. And, what's worse, they're disrespecting a community by telling them that their neighbourhood isn't yet good enough for the likes of them to do business in.
Then we have some attempts to question or qualify the "economic benefit" of stadia to local communities as if the idiosyncrasies of each development weren't greater than the commonalities.
As is my wont, when I read something and wonder about the strength of the foundations on which it is based, I tend to look for evidence. Generally, I don't have time for full-blown research, but I'lll do my best to find the most authoritative evidence I can. That's what I did here. I sought out what evidence is to hand to test the accuracy of the much vaunted assumption that the spending of vast sums by sports businesses offers significant returns to the communities where the investments are located. I'd far rather my thinking be assisted by evidence than be led by hearsay and emotion alone. Some people are far too ready to make bald assertions with little or no evidence, aren't they.
Then comes a tangental (but overtly racist) insight into "the Chinese" and their their motivation in investing.
The quote you give was in fact prefaced with, "There are plenty of examples all round the world of hoped for returns to local economies on investments." In writing that, I hope I'd made clear that I was giving an example; and yes examples are always tangential. I make no apologies for that.
My point in this respect was referring to investments made or controlled by the Chinese state. China has been accused of engaging in "debt trap" diplomacy, an issue that has been much discussed in the thinking press of late. Some have even referred to it as the 'new colonialism' (a phrase which has merit because it carries an implicit acknowledgment of Europe's similar or worse record in this sphere).
I think it takes some force of will to see my comment as racist. The one example I give of resisting Chinese investment refers to a country whose economy is largely run by ethnic Chinese (of which I'm acutely aware because I share my life with a person who is an ethnically Chinese Malaysian).
Lest your will should be of such strength that you still wish to wave an '-ist' card on little evidence, let me assure you that there is no racist sentiment whatsoever behind what I wrote.
-
-
Thanks, JHauptmann. I try to make valid points. Using my own name and giving the sources for my information where they aren't obvious and in plain sight.
You also make a couple of valid points. Unfortunately they are lost within cloud of speculation.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
