Spurs cashing in on development

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Gordon Curtis on October 31, 2013 at 17:50

I'm really interested to hear you your opinion about this Alan, because you'll have a better understanding of it than me.

I don't want to play down the investment by the last govt. or the attempts to tear that apart by the new one. So maybe I am being sold by the Sheila Peacock rhetoric?

I think the land-owner thing is a bit of a red-herring to boost the comments section on the Gaurdian website to be honest. Its been pretty obvious to anyone who lives in the area or who goes to Spurs that they've been buying up property for years to make way for the new stadium.

But, I'm not sure what it is that you're suggesting?

A) The stadium plan should be scrapped altogether

B) The stadium goes ahead, but Spurs should be forced to pay up on commitments to infrastructure and social housing

If the latter, has the deal been agreed, or does Haringey still have some leverage left?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Colinloves on November 1, 2013 at 15:30

Most of the players aint locally from Tottenham.  Sadly the case with most clubs these days.  So really, Tottenham could be anywhere.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by pamish on October 31, 2013 at 15:51

As the great chunks of housing being demolished are council flats, losing that land and resource forever is just not acceptable. Where will those tenants be re-housed? They wont be able to afford the rents that the BTL replacement blocks will end up charging.

Section 106 when it came into law, was usually set at 50% social+affordable housing. That got driven down to 30%, now it's a new bench outside the town hall. These huge tax-scamming developers are simply out to screw us and grab all the publicly-owned land they can, even if they then sit on it for decades awaiting their maximum 'yield'.  The Grainger S106 offer on their fabulously profit-making proposal for Wards Corner, started as building 196 affordable flats elsewhere to match their plan for the slash+burn build of private sales at WC - now they have a deal to paint the lamp-posts in West Green Road, that's it. I'm sure they will correct me if I have forgotten something else.  And our Labour pals who make these decisions are awe-struck by all this money and roll over without a whimper.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Neville Collins on November 1, 2013 at 17:43

Oh, dear. I was criticised after I posted two discussions on Harringay Online, one saying that the High Road was beyond redemption, and two that Spurs would have been better off either going to Stratford or ground sharing with Arsenal. I still stand by both my statements.

What is true is that virtually nothing has been done by Haringey to address Tottenham's real problems. Particularly since the riots. This so called regeneration project could become one of the biggest local government scandals ever. A wildly unpopular and dysfunctional council is in no position to lecture Spurs (or indeed anybody else) about what needs to be done in the area.

The reality in this Plan for Tottenham is that unlike in the case of neighbours Arsenal, there isn't any demand for property in the area. Flattening existing homes and businesses and causing unnecessary disruption. That is even before construction starts on the stadium. This whole process stinks.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Helen on November 1, 2013 at 23:08

It's curious that some people (including Councillors) seem so ready to swallow Spurs' assertion that the £16m commitment to improve transport and community infrastructure and to build 50% affordable housing made it difficult to raise the £400m necessary to build the new stadium.  Why didn't they direct more of the profits from ticket sales into a fund for this purpose rather than to bloated payments to shareholders etc?  And surely if Joe Lewis (who owns a majority of Spurs via Enic International) is a billionaire, he could single handedly front the money for the new stadium.  After all he stands to make a lot from it.  

If this really wasn't an option for some unknown reason, then why didn't the Council settle for at least a percentage of profits from ticket sales to go towards paying back the costs of new infrastructure and social housing.  S106 agreements can cover the transfer of land, so if say a tenth of the stadium area was transferred to the Council, they could have the profits from the seats in that area.

It's pretty immoral that companies can buy up properties over a vast area, leave them to become derelict and help create a run down feel to the area and then proclaim themselves and their redevelopment to be the saviours of the neighbourhood.  And expect local residents to give up their homes and/or livelihoods and be grateful for it too. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Helen on November 1, 2013 at 23:43

Saturday Fever: 1960 footage with lots of clips of Spurs players and fans inside and outside the grounds and the stadium withterraces that then held 70,000 fans.

Just got sent the above link from the excellent Summerhill Road history people who said:

"To all you older Spurs supporters! What wonderful memories of bygone years at White Hart Lane.
 
And to all you younger supporters these were the days when the game still belonged to the Fans... The days when all matches kicked off at 3pm on a Saturday afternoon before the days of commercial greed, online betting and the media companies deciding what day and time your favourite team played their home matches. The days when the players recognised that they had to play and sweat hard to please their fans who after all had paid their wages.  No 'Prima Donnas' back then who were happy to occupy the bench and be paid tens of thousands of pounds per week for the privilege.    Enjoy!"

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gordon Curtis on November 2, 2013 at 19:06

Thats a great link - thanks Helen

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page