[STADIUM MOVE LATEST] Letters, Facts and Figures…..

By on January 19, 2011

tottenham news

One of the problems we’ve faced with regards to the new White Hart Lane or Olympic Stadium argument is mixed messages from all parties. It’s been hard to understand exactly what’s going on from one day to the next. It’s fair to say Spurs haven’t been forthcoming with answers and it’s hard to see how they can be without potentially putting one of their options in jeopardy which is something from a business perspective they’re unlikely to do. It does seem clear however that the board have a preferred option at this present time.

The big sticking point and one of the arguments against staying in Tottenham has been the Section 106 agreement whereby being allowed to develop in the area the developer (Spurs) would have to contribute towards developing the local area too. There have recently been plenty of accusations that Haringey Council haven’t been forthcoming with help for the club until recently when threatened with the possibility of the club moving. Whether this is true or not we only have the following to go by but at least someone is talking to the fans. Make what you will of this:

Lucas Brown, a Spurs fan, wrote to the Haringey Council Leader, Clare Kober asking what they had done to help the club and keep them in the borough. This is her reply:

Dear Lucas

Thank you for your email and concern over the possibility of Spurs moving to the Olympic Stadium in Stratford . Let me make clear that I share your concerns. Any such move would be a hammer blow to North Tottenham and I and Council officers are doing all that we can to make sure that this does not happen.

I am aware of debate amongst Spurs fans over the possibility of the Club moving to Stratford with fans holding mixed feelings. In my view if the Club were to move it would be a sad end to over 100 years of history between the area and the Club. Given the club’s distinct North London roots I doubt many fans will be excited by the prospect of moving to East London .

Can I assure you that Haringey Council has been working hard with Spurs to bring forward proposals to develop a new Stadium at White Hart Lane . The approved scheme at White Hart Lane would provide for the best football facilities in the country. Given the scale of the proposals we have managed to achieve planning approval in record time which compares favourably with other similar developments – the Emirates Stadium took 4 years to achieve planning approval.

I think that it is important that I set the record straight with regards the section 106 agreement that Haringey has negotiated with Spurs. I can confirm that the total agreement is around £15-£16million. Given the scale of the development proposed the section 106 agreement is a relatively small proportion of the predicted £450million cost– around 3.5 per cent. The section 106 agreement would also deliver a number of transport improvements which would help alleviate some of the problems experienced on match days.

The agreement which has been negotiated with Spurs is consistent with developments of this kind. It should also be remembered that if Spurs were to move to the Olympic Stadium their proposals would require them to make a similar section 106 contribution to Newham Council.

There has been quite a lot of inaccurate reporting about the council’s support for Spurs and attached is a fact sheet which we have sent to national, local and specialised media to correct this which I hope you will find useful.

I hope that you can see from my response that I take this issue very seriously. I will continue to work with the Club to achieve what we all want which is for Club to remain in Tottenham, with a state of the art football stadium and spectator facilities as part of a revitalised Tottenham.

Kind regards

Claire Kober
Leader of the Council

Below is the “fact sheet”:

Inaccurate reports have included the claim that the council has dragged its feet. Please read on to see that the reverse is true.

The S106 agreement

  • A Section 106 planning agreement is an agreement by the developer to make a financial contribution to offset the impact of the development on the local community (e.g. some funding towards transport and infrastructure improvements).
  • The S106 and 278 (which covers some highway improvements) agreements amount to a total of around £15-£16million.
  • S106 is a relatively small proportion of the total predicted £450million cost of the development – around 3.5 per cent. Note also that the cost is an investment that will bring returns to THFC
  • The higher costs of the Northumberland Park site against Stratford are certainly not solely attributable to this small S106 agreement.
  • Such negotiations and agreements are entirely normal and an accepted part of the country’s planning system and a scheme of this scale will always be subject to a planning obligation (s.106 agreement).
  • If Tottenham Hotspur were to move to Stratford, they would be required to make an S106/ 278 agreement for any new scheme.

Haringey Council’s support of Spurs’ plans

  • Haringey Council has always been committed to keeping Spurs in Haringey. This commitment – which has been embedded in our plans for the borough since the early 1990s, remains.
  • Planning officers worked closely with Spurs throughout the planning process.
  • The overall planning process took around two years – a relatively short length of time for a scheme of such scale. Plans for Arsenal’s Emirates stadium, for example, took around four years to be passed by Islington Council.
  • The council was supportive of Spurs’ offer to TfL of £2million towards Tottenham Hale Station improvements, although TfL had asked for £5.6million.
  • Haringey Council has been supportive of many elements of Spurs’ planning application, including the demolition of listed and other nearby buildings, the building of a large supermarket, and the club’s negotiations with the Mayor of London and English Heritage.
  • The council has granted in principle support for compulsory purchase orders to make it easier for Spurs to obtain what remaining land they need.

The bigger picture for London:

  • Spurs staying in Haringey is good for Tottenham, for Haringey and for London as a whole.
  • If Spurs stay at White Hart Lane, three major areas stand to benefit from major investment and regeneration – Tottenham (Northumberland Development Project), Stratford (the Olympic site) and West Ham (the area around Upton Park stadium). If Spurs leave, not just Tottenham will miss out. Their desertion would deprive areas of vital regeneration opportunities and affect the whole of London.
  • Losing Spurs would be a hammer blow to the area and to those Tottenham fans who identify strongly with the history they have at White Hart Lane.
  • Spurs deliver a number of schemes which benefit the local community, including study support and To Care is To Do and the extremely welcome work of the TH Foundation.
  • West Ham’s bid guarantees a sporting legacy for athletics and other sports, as well as football.
  • If Spurs were to get the site, their plans for a new stadium would be delayed even further – if they demolish and re-build the stadium, they will have to go through the planning process, and the re-building and would not be able to move until 2015/2016 at the earliest.

Football:

  • Spurs leaving would effectively hand North London to Arsenal, destroying decades of history and leaving tens of thousands of fans with no local team.
  • While Spurs fans travel from far-and-wide, the team is also widely supported in the local community and the roots of the club’s support are embedded in Tottenham. The wishes of many of these fans are being ignored.
  • Spurs say that other clubs have moved stadium without having to change their name. However, many of the examples cited have either not moved since the early 20th century, have moved to within the same area (e.g. Arsenal) or plan to move to a nearby site. A more relevant example would perhaps be Wimbledon’s move to Milton Keynes, and subsequent change of name to MK Dons.
  • Moving to east London would be a wholesale change for Tottenham –  the club’s name is undoubtedly synonymous with the area.

Nobody for one second suggests councils are always 100% honest and don’t have their own agenda when they talk, but at least it’s something. Some information that has been given to the fans, the people that matter and the people who care about what’s happening at the moment.

What you make of it is up to you. Whether you believe a local council can force a company with a Trademarked name to change that name if they so wish is up to you. Whether you believe it’s fair or not for Spurs to pay 3.5% of the proposed total cost of the NDP to the council for improvements to the local area is up to you. Whether you want to stay in N17 or move to Stratford, at least there is finally some information coming from those involved.

The online petition will be passed to the relevant people soon so if you haven’t already signed it please do so here

Submitted by THFC1882

Best of the web

14 Comments

  1. Superfitorfalse

    January 19, 2011 at 9:51 am

    The problem here is our stadium should have stared being built and all the objections have held it up and the cost have soared. The Tottenham board originally used the Olympic Stadium to get there plans excepted now they have bean wooed by a better and more financial offer, and it will take a lot of concessions to change there mind 500 hundred fans wont do that.

  2. Pingback: Tweets that mention [STADIUM MOVE LATEST] Letters, Facts and Figures….. | Football Talk -- Topsy.com

  3. don

    January 19, 2011 at 10:15 am

    What they don’t mention is they are making spurs build half the amount of housing they wanted to build .Which would help pay for the project .And that the transport will still be no better probably worse

    • lloyd

      February 4, 2011 at 2:44 pm

      How do you know? and whats the problem with that? You people are acting as though football clubs are benevloant organisations – the people that work there earn 60k + per week in the most deprived area of London…think about that.

  4. jim

    January 19, 2011 at 10:49 am

    despite most of the media being against the move, i think the split with fans is about 50/50. I for one am all for the move. People seem to think that if we move we lose our history?? Nonsense, if we move, the history moves with us. Even staying in tottenham we aren’t staying at the same ground. So whats the difference if we move 50 meters or 5 miles ?? How many spurs fans these days live in tottenham? barely any, so for traveling fans the olympic stadium is much better. There is also talk of Qatar Airways being getting the naming rights and then buying the club. A new super club is born. Its called evolution. Move or we lose out.

  5. Ossie

    January 19, 2011 at 11:58 am

    Also, she fails to mention the £100 MILLION pound investment the council offered both Arsenal and Wembley, We get £0 from the council AND have to pay £16m to regenerate the area, £2m more to improve a train station plus £50m more to regenerate boarded up old buildings and changing our plans

    • lloyd

      February 4, 2011 at 2:47 pm

      But if we watsed 50mil on players that would be ok? You people simply arn’t thinking straight.

  6. Duqemin

    January 19, 2011 at 1:13 pm

    Never mind about leaving North London to Arsenal, moving to the OS will allow Spurs to rule all of London.

    Woolwich Arsenal became Arsenal when they moved.

    Spurs original name was Hotspur FC and only changed to Tottenham Hotspur because another Hotspur FC was found to exist elsewhere in London back in the day.

    We are watching great football now and why ? Because of astute management by Levy etc.

    The latter recognise that we cannot advance further without moving. Ib life, if one does not advancr one goes backwards.

    As a kid i lived in Farningham Road very close to the current ground. I do not feel any allegiance to Hotspur FC in Tottenham.

    I do feel allegiance to Hotspur FC reclaiming its spot at the summit of British football.

    I say move to Qatar Airways Stadium 5 miles or so away, a distance more than made up for by being far quicker to reach by Hotspur FC fans that are spread around South East England and beyond.

  7. Slim

    January 19, 2011 at 1:14 pm

    Are you seriously going to submit a petition which has the following on it? :

    6302. alex the bender noobtuber (unverified)
    I support this petition NOT
    6300. cock tease belend (unverified)
    I support this petition
    6148. daniel levy (unverified)
    I support this petition u arsenal bastards
    6146. Bin Laden (unverified)
    move to stratford so i can blow you all up
    6144. adolf hittler (unverified)
    spluka de deustch
    6143. her majastey the queen (unverified)

  8. lieutenant

    January 19, 2011 at 1:33 pm

    I love the club not haringey…west london is nice, loyal 30years and tired of neighbourhood disgrace! like eastern europe? transport worse divorce dump…E15 better, move-on billions invested tube links great, new pubs bars cafe`s resturants shops village 1-2 times a week etc corporate city and AEG…two thirds or 55,000 stadium to be removed! anyway not demolished reduced size 25k arena not impressed with kober lammy livingstone critics? white elephant spammers folly haha doh! c`mon you spurs! ICC inter city casuals dudes posse, outlaws london spooks…

  9. frontwheel

    January 19, 2011 at 3:05 pm

    /\ M O N G /\

  10. JimB

    January 19, 2011 at 3:38 pm

    Don,

    It wasn’t Haringey that recommended that Spurs reduce the amount of housing proposed for the Niorthumberland Development Project. It was CABE – the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment.

    And they did so because Spurs were trying to cram in far too many homes into a small space. The original design of the housing was far too massive and was completely out of context with the area. Developers can’t have everything their own way. They have to build with at least some thought for how the development will impact upon the area. So CABE were quite correct to nudge Spurs towards a change.

    Ossie,

    Where do you get this nonsense that Arsenal were given £100 million of public money? It’s simply not true. They didn’t get a single penny.

    In fact, Arsenal had to spend £50 million on relocating and building a new recycling plant for Islington. They also had to spend £20 million on various transport and infrastructure upgrades. The way in which Islington council did help Arsenal was by granting them CPO’s (compulsory purchase orders) which allowed them to turf out some businesses and make a profit from redeveloping the land for housing. Haringey have also offered to help Spurs with CPO’s.

    I do wish people would stop regurgitating the misinformed rubbish they read in the media, especially since a lot of it is now being directed by Spurs’ hired gun media guru – spinmeister, Mike Lee.

  11. the optimist

    January 19, 2011 at 4:40 pm

    I have mentioned elsewhere….gonna start a storm here…anyone considered a ground share at the Olympic Park? There are pro’s and cons, but it IS possible. Could then use Upton Park for athletics? Newham gets it’s promised athletics venue and two clubs get FULL use of Olympic Park. Shared costs and revenue, more cash for teams. If only we can overcome the many objections that are sure to be raised. Constructive comments please???

  12. Richard Essen

    January 19, 2011 at 5:09 pm

    If we move to East London, we become Stratford Hotspur. Even though in 1882-84 the club was known as Hotspur FC, they played on TOTTENHAM Marshes. Its a move too far for me. If the transport links aren’t good enough then sort them out in North London where we have played since 1882. I sincerely hope that the Olympic bid for Spurs is rejected. Let the Hammers have it, as its in their historical backyard. Arsenal moved to East London because it was too crowded with West Ham, Millwall and Charlton, so lets not add to the congestion by abandoning our roots.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *