Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Spurs cashing in on development
Interesting article in the Guardian about Spurs having recently transferred the land they've bought up in Tottenham to an offshore company registered in the Bahamas. And of course about the local shops and homes to be knocked down to contribute to creating massive profits for Spurs and developers.
More here too:
Tottenham's stadium development: locals losing out? - in pictures
Tottenham Hotspur new stadium: local traders oppose Haringey master...
Tags for Forum Posts: development, spurs, tottenham
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by EMC2 on
-
The Guardian reports: "Spurs transfered ownership of the Sainsbury's site to TH Property in the Bahamas on March 27, 2013. A Spurs spokesperson said the transfer was not done to avoid paying UK tax on any profit made when the property is sold."
Not done to avoid tax? Why then? Tax dodger ruse this, usually...
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
A business, especially in a competitive environment like the Premier League, does everything it can to minimise expenses and make profits. Tax is an expense. This anonymous Spurs spokesperson tells lies. More here.
-
Permalink Reply by Mark Smith on
-
Spurs claim they did it to move debts outside the UK, making it easier to raise the funds to build the stadium, rather than to avoid paying taxes. Considering Joe Lewis is a tax exile living in the Bahamas, I'll take them at their word...
-
Permalink Reply by Gordon Curtis on
-
I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall for the negotiations of Levy vs. Haringey Council.
"The transfer was to clear debts out of our UK companies which had bought the properties, so the club itself is not carrying the debts," she said. "That will help with the bank financing required for the new stadium. Both this and the club are UK operating organisations and UK tax will be paid on all UK transactions."
IIRC, there were similar rumblings and complaints about the (Woolich) Arsenal Asbuton Grove development (though off-shore tax concerns weren't really buzz-issue at the time pre-2007). I doubt many of the complainants are still complaining now. On the whole, its been a great scheme and something that all Londoners (even grudging Spurs fans) should be proud of.
Similarily there were concerns over the many business effected by the toxic-land grab for the Olympics, again, its hard to argue that the ends didn't justify the means.
I imagine that local shop/business owners will do very well out of purchases (which will I assume be well-over market value as is the nature of these things) and will do equally well out of improved transport links and increased populas, not to mention the increased traffic of an extra 20,000 people every other Saturday.
I think that there needs to be a lot more honesty about tax affairs in this country, both ways. Whilst highlight poor corporate practices, we also need to acknowledge that in a global market, its not as simple as "companyA pays %B to govtC" any more.
-
-
Honesty? IMHO it's reasonably simple. The rich (including companies) can afford to artificially structure their affairs to dodge (insert avoid/plan/other euphemism) tax while the average citizen can't. The average citizen then ends up paying more than they would otherwise. These companies freeload on the backs of the rest of us. Accountants, Lawyers, Bankers and other upstanding folk enable the dodging and profit mightily.
-
-
I'm not saying that some tax-avoidance practices aren't down-right immoral. But I don't think that coporations can be treated in the same way as an individual PAYE tax payer either.
I don't think theres anything unusual or illegal about what Spurs are doing? I don't know enough about it, but then, neither does the author of the Guardian peice.
I think this scheme is a wonderful oppotunity for Tottenham and will make it a far more pleasant place to be, not only on match days, but year-round. Of course Spurs are going to profit from it, but if Haringey don't make a total balls-up of it, so will the wider community, the two things aren't mutually exclusive.
-
Permalink Reply by Colinloves on
-
Its mainly council homes that are gonna get knocked down.
Well, it aint as if the council are building more 'council houses'
-
Permalink Reply by pamish on
-
How is it OK that the original agreement to provide 50% social and affordable housing has turned into US giving THEM £41million? Spurs would have derived income from that housing, it's not a gift. They are I believe the eleventh richest football club in the world. They would have had the other 50% of the flats to sell or lease at vast profits, as well as the rent from Sainsburys etc. They are just another developer, a Macalpine for N17. This is about housing and retail development, it's fuckall to do with football.
Watching the crowds stream up the road to a match from the tube and train, I wonder how many live here, they all look like commuters to me. And those bloody helicopters drive us crazy, at least give us something back.
-
-
The figure of 50% social housing always seemed ambitious. Totally agree its a real shame that we've ended up with 0% and it feels like an oppotunity missed.
As far as I know, the profit element from the sale of the housing will be pumped straight into stadium costs. As a comparrison, Arsenal have only just paid for they're stadium and they will have made a lot more from they're property development and been able to borrow a lot more cheaply pre-2007 AND they currently make 10x as much profit as Spurs every year.
Rather depressingly, only 17% of Spurs season ticket holders live in N17. This is an indicator not just of the circumstances of the area in general, but also with the way that the Premier League Sky TV has changed club's support.
To be fair Spurs have been on the same site since 1899, so I'm sure they've been annoying local residents a bit longer than you've been there or theres been helicopters :)
-
-
Oh and it took riots for the govt. to finally pull its finger out and actually give that £41million, long over-due investment, I'm not sure the burden of cost for the area lies soley at Spurs' door.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
This is the Sheila Peacock nonsense that the riot had a silver lining.
It ignores the millions poured into Tottenham and other areas by the last Government. For example, for school buildings; for the Decent Homes programme; for Children's Centres; NHS new hospitals etc etc.
Do you seriously think it's fair and just to let a very rich football club - and now we learn an growing local landowner - off its obligations to have social housing and contribute to the infrastucture costs required to serve its larger stadium? Do you think it's right to demolish an estate to in the hope it will please the Spurs Directors and build their club a Wembley-style walkway?
What kind of place will Tottenham be if the Club gets its way and becomes a 365 day a year "Leisure Destination". Do you live in the area, Gordon? If so is that what you want for your local streets?
If I had 100 quid for every time I've heard about Spurs "kick-starting regeneration" or a "catalyst for regeneration" in Tottenham I'd now have enough spare cash to refurbish the whole of Love Lane Estate and the surrounding area. And without any need to put all my begs-in-one-ask-it; grovelling to Spurs and hoping they'll do the job of regeneration the current Council leadership is clueless about.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
