this "Wembley Way" idea would it go from WHL station?

Ever thought of renaming yourself as Rosie47?
Would go nicely with your rose picture as well as being a nice nod to Harry R.

Tottenhams only a bit dodgy if you hang around a tad too long after the rest of the football fans have gone home. But then you could say the same about many run down areas of London or any big city for that matter.
Ive been going to the Lane on and off since 1978 and never once had a problem with a local (although the beggar in McDonalds can get a bit annoying :))

Heres a thought...if Qatari Airlines sponsor the stadium, will rival fans dub it the 'Phlegmirates'?:cheers:

I remember once staying for a drink in the Bell & Hare after a League Cup match. My mates were getting the train so I walked back to my car on my own. Parked in the usual place, the far side of Bruce Castle Park from the stadium.

Normally, there are loads of other football fans taking the same route back to their cars. This time, however, there wasn't a soul but me. There's no lighting in the park and, halfway through, I saw two or three groups of shadowy lads in hoodies, lingering 20-30 yards from the path. It was only then that I thought to myself what a fool I was to be walking alone through that park on my own at that time of night. I was mighty glad to reach the far end of the park!

Going back to the train situation, I use Northumberland Park to Stratford, fantasticly quick and easy just wish it was more than one an hour

Maybe that service will be increased as part of the deal to develop the NDP?

You're a long way from glory-glory, by the way. ;)

I think it would also be nice to have a station named after the Club e.g. Spurs (Northumberland Park). Just an idea!

I've long thought that, if we ever did get a tube station, it should be called Tottenham Hotspur.

Gillespie Road tube station was renamed Arsenal at that club's request, after all.

nice to see the future plans section back on the official website, is it me or have the layout changed on the website or something? was hoping news on any capicity increase hoping it doesnt stay at 56k would think 60k to 65 k would be better buts thats just my opinion.

and any older yids can you help us when was the last season spurs finished 3rd? and when did we last finish runners up im sure since i was born in 1990 highest we have come is 4th?

New website. A bit shit at the moment. But hopefully just teething problems. The Future Plans section has been back on the OS for a few months now, long before the new website was up and running.

From reading that I could see them creating a whole new station entrance at the other end of the WHL station platform. You would then come out of the station looking straight to the centre of the new stadium. What a sight that would be!

Good point. If you look at the google maps view and zoom in you can see how this would work....

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&tab=wl&q=white%20hart%20lane

Exit the station at the South end of the platform and then I guess the plaza would be where the British Queen pub currently is (closed down anyway I think?). Would only then take the removal of a few buildings along Whitehall St and possibly a single terrace on the High Road to create a "White Hart Lane Way" stadium approach.

The last time we came 3rd actually was 1989/90. The last time we finished runners up was 1962/3!

I'm not that much of an older yid though, only ten years older than you, but I am now old enough to find it annoying when people tell me they were born in the 1990s, it doesn't seem right ;)

I was at the final game of 1989-90 when we confirmed our third place finish. It was between us and Arsenal. We were winning comfortably against Southampton and Arsenal were playing away against Norwich. Spurs had taken the unusual step (back then) of providing updates from the Arsenal game on the scoreboard (on the West stand in those days, if I recall correctly). Biggest cheer of the day was when Norwich 1-0 Arsenal came up. Crowd went into party mode. Of course, out of nowhere, Southampton pulled a goal back. And within a minute, came within an ace of scoring an equalizer, which would have knocked us back down to 4th. Thankfully, we held on.

Lots of excitement, too, about the fact that Gazza and Lineker were imminently due to star for England at Italia 90.

ha ha i get ya. and cheers for the info dont know why i thought 87 im sure we beat united at old trafford that year or something it stuck in mind somehow, that was the season allen scored 49 goals too i think

and you think thats worse my uncle went to most the games in the double winning season so i always get stories about all the cups we won when he grew up, and all the players of that era where as i only seen spurs win 2 league cups and remember players like tarrico and chris armstrong lol

at least i think our trophey droughts might be coming to end, FA Cup 2012

Looked up for a title challenge in '87 until bogged down by a big fixture backlog, caused by going all the way in both cups (remember that there were no penalty shootouts in domestic competitions back then - instead, there were potentially endless replays). We lost a crucial game against eventual winners, Everton, in which Neville Southall played a blinder. And we tailed off after that to finish a relatively distant third. Hopefully, nothing similar will happen this year after our loss to Man City.

Thing is, back in those days, a third place finish wasn't such a big deal for us anyway. Firstly, we regularly finished in the top four back then. Spurs were one of the "Big Five" clubs, along with Liverpool, Everton, Man Utd and Arsenal. Secondly, unlike now, there was no major reward for finishing second, third or fourth - especially from 1985-90, during English football's European ban.

Good point. If you look at the google maps view and zoom in you can see how this would work....

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&tab=wl&q=white%20hart%20lane

Exit the station at the South end of the platform and then I guess the plaza would be where the British Queen pub currently is (closed down anyway I think?). Would only then take the removal of a few buildings along Whitehall St and possibly a single terrace on the High Road to create a "White Hart Lane Way" stadium approach.

Yep. I think Loughton has it spot on. Would make sense and would be a great way to arrive at the stadium.

And, yes, the British Queen has closed down.

The walkway is a nice idea in principle, but if the article in the local paper is anything to go by, there will be strong opposition to it.

Up to now only commercial premises have needed to be knocked down (and that has been difficult enough) but once you start chucking people out of their homes, its a different kettle of fish.

There's also the small matter of the High Road lying between the station and the ground. Presumably there will need to be a high-level walkway over it?

£8.5m seems an awful lot of money to spend on something that will be purely cosmetic.

The walkway is a nice idea in principle, but if the article in the local paper is anything to go by, there will be strong opposition to it.

Up to now only commercial premises have needed to be knocked down (and that has been difficult enough) but once you start chucking people out of their homes, its a different kettle of fish.

There's also the small matter of the High Road lying between the station and the ground. Presumably there will need to be a high-level walkway over it?

£8.5m seems an awful lot of money to spend on something that will be purely cosmetic.

Cosmetic improvements can have a big effect on how people think of their area and, consequently, how they behave. Areas that look like shit holes tend to breed and ferment crime. Areas that look cared for tend to discourage crime. Have you ever read "The Tipping Point" by Malcolm Gladwell? If not, it's well worth a read. Has a section about New York that deals with this subject.

There's also the small matter of the High Road lying between the station and the ground. Presumably there will need to be a high-level walkway over it?

I can't see people going over a bridge when they can just cross the road. The high road is like a free-for-all on matchdays currently anyway. They would be better off removing all the road clutter and treating as some sort of a shared space, like the new Exhibition Road in Kensington. Apparently as drivers and pedestrians actually have to think, it makes it safer.

Ever thought of renaming yourself as Rosie47?
Would go nicely with your rose picture as well as being a nice nod to Harry R.

is that the name of redknapps dog or something lol?

Looked up for a title challenge in '87 until bogged down by a big fixture backlog, caused by going all the way in both cups (remember that there were no penalty shootouts in domestic competitions back then - instead, there were potentially endless replays). We lost a crucial game against eventual winners, Everton, in which Neville Southall played a blinder. And we tailed off after that to finish a relatively distant third. Hopefully, nothing similar will happen this year after our loss to Man City.

Thing is, back in those days, a third place finish wasn't such a big deal for us anyway. Firstly, we regularly finished in the top four back then. Spurs were one of the "Big Five" clubs, along with Liverpool, Everton, Man Utd and Arsenal. Secondly, unlike now, there was no major reward for finishing second, third or fourth - especially from 1985-90, during English football's European ban.

ah ok know we lost semi league cup that season and RU in the Fa cup too was thats the last season we had a realistic punt at the title race apart from this year maybe is City keep on losing

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-2095147/Charles-Sale-Levy-axes-Spurs-commerce-chief.html

This article in the Mail says that Levy has sacked the commercial director (who he hired last year) for failing to attract any serious sponsorship for the stadium.

I had hoped that a sponsor had been lined up prior to the de-listing, who was going to commit properly after the de-listing. That seems to be wishful thinking unfortunately.

I can't see the Victoria Line ever going to NP. We all know it would need a complete station revamp which would cost a few bob and reality probably only 1 in 4 trains (max) would go there. So most passengers are going to have to change at Tottenham Hale anyway. They might as well just change on to trains that currently serve the line. Even though it would be a great addition to travel options for Spurs fans I can't see it happening.

This article indicating support from the then mayor of London from 9 YEARS AGO:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2862557.stm

Good point. If you look at the google maps view and zoom in you can see how this would work....

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&tab=wl&q=white%20hart%20lane

Exit the station at the South end of the platform and then I guess the plaza would be where the British Queen pub currently is (closed down anyway I think?). Would only then take the removal of a few buildings along Whitehall St and possibly a single terrace on the High Road to create a "White Hart Lane Way" stadium approach.

Pretty narrow down Whitehall Road, they will have to widen that if they are going to funnel thousands of fans down there on match days.

http://g.co/maps/3apsg

Pretty narrow down Whitehall Road, they will have to widen that if they are going to funnel thousands of fans down there on match days.

http://g.co/maps/3apsg

If Loughton and Finney are right (and I think that they might well be), then that article in the Journal, quoting the councillor, confirms that some buildings will be demolished.

So, yes, they will widen the stadium approach.

If Loughton and Finney are right (and I think that they might well be), then that article in the Journal, quoting the councillor, confirms that some buildings will be demolished.

So, yes, they will widen the stadium approach.

I'm sure the retailers on WHL itself will kick up a stink, most of the foot traffic will be taken away from their doorstep.

I imagine most of those buildings on Whitehall Rd are council owned. May make it easier to redevelop.

is that the name of redknapps dog or something lol?
Actually its the name he gave to one of his offshore bank accounts being questioned presently by the magistrates.
Rosie's his bitch, 47 is H. Redknapp's year of birth.
Great name for a pub that would be next to Spurs' new stadium.
The ROSIE 47 pub.

A nice direct path from the station to the stadium, like at Wembley, would be nice. I still think I'd go to Seven Sisters though, I enjoy the walk :)
I prefer Northumberland Park. It's a bit further than WHL station but you don't have to queue up to get in, the trains to Liverpool Street are quicker or you can change at Tottenham hale and get on an empty tube.

I like to walk from Seven Sisters during the warmer months as there's usually a good atmosphere with the thousands of other fans chanting as they walk up the High Road. Plus I can grab a bite to eat and place a bet before arriving at the ground.

However when it's this cold and I'm rushing to get to a midweek game I'll catch the overground to White Hart Lane, always nice and toasty on those crowded train carriages!

Are there any decent takeaways / shops along Park Lane on the walk to Northumberland Park station? As I've never used that station and judging by Google Maps that area doesn't look particularly welcoming...

I like to walk from Seven Sisters during the warmer months as there's usually a good atmosphere with the thousands of other fans chanting as they walk up the High Road. Plus I can grab a bite to eat and place a bet before arriving at the ground.

However when it's this cold and I'm rushing to get to a midweek game I'll catch the overground to White Hart Lane, always nice and toasty on those crowded train carriages!

Are there any decent takeaways / shops along Park Lane on the walk to Northumberland Park station? As I've never used that station and judging by Google Maps that area doesn't look particularly welcoming...

I rarely go to the Lane via Northumberland Park station. On the few occasions that I have, I did notice one or two takeaway places en route. But I've never been tempted to try any of them out. Hardly alluring. You're better off sticking with your tried and trusted along the High Road or in the stadium itself.

Certainly, if wider regeneration is to include Northumberland Park station (whether part of the Underground or Overground network), you'd hope that that stretch of Park Lane would benefit.

Are there any decent takeaways / shops along Park Lane on the walk to Northumberland Park station? As I've never used that station and judging by Google Maps that area doesn't look particularly welcoming...

It's not exactly a retail heaven!! There's a chip shop next to the station which is ok and another one half way up park lane next to a Jamacan pastry shop. Also a pub. None of which are particularly inviting.

But it's not exactly inviting for the local stabby's either!
Then there is the new Spurs shop at the station which beats the crowds of the megastore. It just depends what your needs are. I just like to get to the ground as soon as possible.

I prefer Northumberland Park. It's a bit further than WHL station but you don't have to queue up to get in, the trains to Liverpool Street are quicker or you can change at Tottenham hale and get on an empty tube.
I'm actually quite surprised more people don't do that. While I get off at Seven Sisters when going to the match, I always walk to Tottenham Hale on the way home. Barely any difference compared to the time it takes to walk to Seven Sisters and there's usually a handful of people there. It's quite fun being on an almost deserted tube train, pulling in to Seven Sisters, and seeing the masses of people crowded onto the platform!

Story now appearing in the BBC and the Standard:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16810475

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-mayor/article-24032480-spurs-called-on-to-support-area-being-regenerated-after-the-riots.do

The Standard one says we are actually getting £41m, not £27m

I hope this is a prelude to the REALLY important announcement, about sponsorship and funding.

Found this with regards to the £41m.
http://www.freshbusinessthinking.com/news.php?CID=0&NID=12544&PGID=1

"Investment through the Fund will support work and master-planning across the following areas:

• £27 million for North Tottenham/Northumberland Park — to support transport infrastructure and public realm improvements to help unlock proposals for the major stadium-led regeneration scheme.
• £2.8 million into a package of works to improve the High Road, bringing disused buildings back into use, paving the way for growth in terms of housing, employment and community.
• £4 million to support an Opportunity Investment Fund — to purchase key sites to bring forward development on the High Road and at Tottenham Hale.
• £4.5 million for an Employment and Skills programme to provide support for hard to reach young people and problem families in terms of employability, access to jobs and skills training.
• £3 million to transform 639 High Road for community use. Formerly borough planning offices, this listed building, opposite the Carpet Right store, was burnt out during the disturbances. The building will be transformed into a Team London Enterprise and Employment Hub creating a space that will house a number of different initiatives and schemes helping business start-ups and young entrepreneurs, as well as supporting skills and employment opportunities for local people, youth sport projects and volunteering opportunities. It is also proposed that the site will house a social enterprise café. The project team will be working with the local community to involve them in running and managing the hub."

The only thing that would draw me to Northumberland Park nowadays is the superb lamb doner from Seastar Fish Bar across the road.

There used to be the Park Tavern (next to the station) and the Milford Tavern half way down the road. But both of them have been turned into flats in the last couple of years, leaving only the appalling Olive Branch in that road.

I'm actually quite surprised more people don't do that. While I get off at Seven Sisters when going to the match, I always walk to Tottenham Hale on the way home. Barely any difference compared to the time it takes to walk to Seven Sisters and there's usually a handful of people there. It's quite fun being on an almost deserted tube train, pulling in to Seven Sisters, and seeing the masses of people crowded onto the platform!

Judging from the amount of money being spent on Tottenham Hale, they want to turn this into the tube station of choice for supporters (in the absence of an extension to NP). There was talk in the planning decision of some kind of shuttle to the ground from there and from Wood Green.

The traffic via Watermead Way from Hale is much better than on the High Road from Seven Sisters, so that would make sense.

I went to the Swansea game on new years eve and they had a bus which went between the ground and the town centre via a road that was closed to other traffic (although oddly this was only used after the game, not before). Maybe they are planning this type of thing for Tottenham Hale.

Full planning application can be found here
http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=252825

Some more consultation responses on the planning services website.

They don't sound too glowing (especially 012). Does anyone know if this is normal for these type of responses? :nuts:

I went to the Swansea game on new years eve and they had a bus which went between the ground and the town centre via a road that was closed to other traffic (although oddly this was only used after the game, not before). Maybe they are planning this type of thing for Tottenham Hale.
Wish I'd know about that bus! My brother and I went to that game too and just walked the whole way from Swansea station to the stadium; some tosser deliberately drove his car through a big puddle to splash me! At least my brother found it amusing as it missed him completely :)

Luckily we were staying in a hotel overnight instead of going straight back home, so at least I was able to change clothes and have a shower instead of spending three hours on a train back to London in damp clothes!

Some more consultation responses on the planning services website.

They don't sound too glowing (especially 012). Does anyone know if this is normal for these type of responses? :nuts:
Looking at the planning application, the responses, the detail they have to go into, it's quite daunting and mind boggling. No wonder projects like this can take ages to get off the ground.

Actually its the name he gave to one of his offshore bank accounts being questioned presently by the magistrates.
Rosie's his bitch, 47 is H. Redknapp's year of birth.
Great name for a pub that would be next to Spurs' new stadium.
The ROSIE 47 pub.

it's not a magistrates court but a full blown jury trial. I am sure there are supporters of Bournemouth, West Ham, Portsmouth and Southampton ready to give evidence if they could. Lester Piggotts cell is being cleaned out as we speak. Spurs have been lucky that Levy has kept such tight reins on him.

Some more consultation responses on the planning services website.

They don't sound too glowing (especially 012). Does anyone know if this is normal for these type of responses? :nuts:

On the original application (for the 58k stadium) there were literally hundreds of these consultation responses. Spurs activelly encouraged people to write in their support. Obviously there were lots of objections and negative responses too (many from disgruntled or mischievous gooners if I recall) some of which were hilarious to read.
Whilst I wouldnt want to disregard these responses I dont remember ever seeing any which held any sway in the original planning agreement (apart from EH & CABE maybe) so I wouldnt read too much into the fact that some 'parties' have some 'concerns' which they are willing to put into print. I know that sounds a tad naive but I think its going to take some effort to derail this now.

Some more consultation responses on the planning services website.

They don't sound too glowing (especially 012). Does anyone know if this is normal for these type of responses? :nuts:

Well spotted Loughtonspur

These responses are a lot more negative than the previous consultation. The only people who were opposed last time were a few nutters. This time it seems to be mainly from official bodies.

We also know that one of the local councillors is opposed to the changes and no doubt he will be whipping up support for the planning meeting in a couple of weeks.

I suppose the main (only?) reason for the changes to the scheme is to cut costs / increase profits, so maybe its not surprising that it is receiving more opposition this time around.

Well spotted Loughtonspur

These responses are a lot more negative than the previous consultation. The only people who were opposed last time were a few nutters. This time it seems to be mainly from official bodies.

We also know that one of the local councillors is opposed to the changes and no doubt he will be whipping up support for the planning meeting in a couple of weeks.

I suppose the main (only?) reason for the changes to the scheme is to cut costs / increase profits, so maybe its not surprising that it is receiving more opposition this time around.

Without having read any of the responses in detail, I didn't get the impression that any official bodies were "opposed" to the revised plans. In fact, they seemed to be broadly in favour. It's just that they have to do their jobs (bureaucrats love to do what bureaucrats do) and they have to point out where the revised plans don't meet with current guidelines.

So it's not a big deal, in my amateur opinion. I suspect that this is just standard procedure - ironing out all the creases. Certainly, there don't appear to be any major obstacles in Spurs' way thus far. Nor would I expect there to be any. Too many people within too many authorities want the NDP to happen - and soon.

Also.....that councillor. From what I understood of that article, he wasn't against the changes as such. He was merely against the way in which he felt the council had misinformed people as to what was actually proposed.

On the original application (for the 58k stadium) there were literally hundreds of these consultation responses. Spurs activelly encouraged people to write in their support. Obviously there were lots of objections and negative responses too (many from disgruntled or mischievous gooners if I recall) some of which were hilarious to read.
Whilst I wouldnt want to disregard these responses I dont remember ever seeing any which held any sway in the original planning agreement (apart from EH & CABE maybe) so I wouldnt read too much into the fact that some 'parties' have some 'concerns' which they are willing to put into print. I know that sounds a tad naive but I think its going to take some effort to derail this now.

There's a rather funny petition being promoted on Twitter by Gooners. They don't want public money to go to Tottenham Hotspurs for a "rarely used stadium and associated infrastructure" :nuts:

it's not a magistrates court but a full blown jury trial. I am sure there are supporters of Bournemouth, West Ham, Portsmouth and Southampton ready to give evidence if they could. Lester Piggotts cell is being cleaned out as we speak. Spurs have been lucky that Levy has kept such tight reins on him.

Bournemouth - I have no idea what happened with regard to their finances but Harry did a good job there, on the whole, taking Bournemouth into the second tier of English football for the only time in their history.

West Ham - got into financial trouble because they were relegated a season or two after Harry left, having just taken on a serious level of debt in order to build a new stand.

Southampton - ditto, except for the fact that they had built a whole, new stadium and that Harry was at the helm as they were relegated, having taken over the sinking ship mid season.

Portsmouth - got into financial trouble because they had a wealthy owner who sanctioned big spending on player purchases and wages and who then suddenly realised that he wasn't as wealthy as he thought he was.

West Ham also got into further trouble after their Icelandic owners comically overspent on big transfer fees and wages for average players - and then realised that they too weren't as wealthy as they thought they were.

Other than failing to turn Southampton's fortunes around during their relegation season, I don't see how Harry is to blame for the mismanagement of those who were in charge of the various clubs' finances. His job is as a football manager - a job that he does remarkably well.

But then, he is an easy and predictable target for the haters.

One of the funniest things I've heard was someone who was slagging off Harry for ruining various clubs. I pointed out that the managers don't have anything to do with the finances, that side of the club is down to owners, chairmen, board members, the accounts department, etc.. Harry couldn't just decide how much a player would be played and give him a contract. Nope, they wouldn't have it, it was all Harry's fault!

Then the same person one day lamented that it was a shame a big club like Leeds weren't in the Premier League, and it was a disgrace what Peter Ridsdale had done to them :) Not O'Leary, or Venables, or Peter Reid, I asked? No, of course not, they were just the managers...

It is ironic that building a new stand or stadium does lead to relegation. in West Ham's case 1970's East Stand 1990's North and South stand 2000's West stand. I think except for Arsenal (still might eventually catch up with them) major building work leads to relegation even Man Utd. As for Redknapp closer attention needs looking into the Storrie/Redknapp combination at West Ham and Portsmouth. Football is corrupt. In west Ham accounts the season before the sale to the icelandics the managing director increased his shareholding from 900 to 55900. It public record.

Another little find for you. Here is the agenda for the planning meeting on 13th feb.
http://www.minutes.haringey.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=728&MId=5266&Ver=4

Here is the new s106 doc
http://www.minutes.haringey.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=25189

And here is one of the docs with some new pics (page's 37-38)
http://www.minutes.haringey.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=25180

Some highlights include:

'The club now proposes an indicative constructive timetable for its three phase NDP scheme as follows:
Phase 1 (Northern Development) with the supermarket, club and other commercial space - start in Autumn 2012 with completion in 2014.
The new stadium (Phase 2) start in summer 2013 with completion in 2016
Phase 3 (Southern Development) with housing and commercial space - subject to being granted full planning permission, start in 2016 following demolition of the existing stadium'

The new s106 states that they're planning on building a new southern ticket hall at whl station with a direct walkway down Whitehall road plus re-naming the station.

It also says we don't have to pay the 16m from the agreed s106.

Some highlights include:

'The club now proposes an indicative constructive timetable for its three phase NDP scheme as follows:
Phase 1 (Northern Development) with the supermarket, club and other commercial space - start in Autumn 2012 with completion in 2014.
The new stadium (Phase 2) start in summer 2013 with completion in 2016
Phase 3 (Southern Development) with housing and commercial space - subject to being granted full planning permission, start in 2016 following demolition of the existing stadium'

The new s106 states that they're planning on building a new southern ticket hall at whl station with a direct walkway down Whitehall road plus re-naming the station.

It also says we don't have to pay the 16m from the agreed s106.

Wow, I suspect they papers will kick up a stink about that.

Another little find for you. Here is the agenda for the planning meeting on 13th feb.
http://www.minutes.haringey.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=728&MId=5266&Ver=4

Here is the new s106 doc
http://www.minutes.haringey.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=25189

And here is one of the docs with some new pics (page's 37-38)
http://www.minutes.haringey.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=25180

Wow, this is a mine of information.

The council officially recognise that the current permission is not commercially viable, but the proposed changes will increase the chance of it being viable. I wonder if funders/sponsors will magically appear once these changes are passed.

The main points of the new application seem to be: 1) add 85 new flats, 2) scrap all social housing in the scheme, and 3) rip up the old s.106 so that the council/mayor pay for all the improvements Spurs were supposed to pay for.

If the revised plans go through, and if they can find funding, the target completion date for the stadium is 2016. I think that means that the "Interim Stadium" (without the Kop end) should be open 2015. But there are a lot of hoops to go through before then.

The documents confirm that along with tarting up the existing stations there will be shuttle buses to the Victoria and Piccadilly Lines. In the Q&A session with the council and residents (3rd attachment) the club express surprise that TFL didn't want to extend the Vic Line to NP, and the club were prepared to contribute towards it.

.

The documents confirm that along with tarting up the existing stations there will be shuttle buses to the Victoria and Piccadilly Lines. In the Q&A session with the council and residents (3rd attachment) the club express surprise that TFL didn't want to extend the Vic Line to NP, and the club were prepared to contribute towards it.

All underground lines are at capacity except for the Bakerloo which has come to the forefront for extending to Lewisham and Hayes. If it happen which I doubt it will be another five years as crossrail is taking all the money.

If you google map the northumberland park line you can see the corridor of land (overgrown with trees and bushes) set aside from Temple Mills to Brimsdown for four tracking which railtrack is due to start when they get the money which will utilise the land at Northumberland Park.

Some highlights include:

'The club now proposes an indicative constructive timetable for its three phase NDP scheme as follows:
Phase 1 (Northern Development) with the supermarket, club and other commercial space - start in Autumn 2012 with completion in 2014.
The new stadium (Phase 2) start in summer 2013 with completion in 2016
Phase 3 (Southern Development) with housing and commercial space - subject to being granted full planning permission, start in 2016 following demolition of the existing stadium'

The new s106 states that they're planning on building a new southern ticket hall at whl station with a direct walkway down Whitehall road plus re-naming the station.

It also says we don't have to pay the 16m from the agreed s106.

Another great find, Loughton. Sterling work. Deserving of a medal.

Some very interesting stuff there - not least the proposed construction schedule. Do we finally have a start date for stadium construction? Let's hope so! I think Kebab Man must be right - the 2016 completion date must be for the entire stadium because it surely couldn't or shouldn't take three years to build phase 1. If so, we only have three full seasons left at the old WHL.

A few other things I noticed:

- obligation to allocate up to 2,500 extra season tickets to Haringey and Enfield residents for the first season in the new stadium and, thereafter, at least to reserve a priority booking for up to 2,500 Haringey and Enfield residents.

- consider greater number of non football events.

- the reduction of the S106 commitments, along with "enhanced positions" related to naming rights, external income and equity investment have made the NDP viable.

That's the first mention I've heard of potential equity finance. Whether that will come from ENIC / Joe Lewis or whether they're looking at investment from other sources, it will mean a reduced debt requirement - obviously a good thing.

Wow, I suspect they papers will kick up a stink about that.

We've actually known this for a while.

Many of the demands made of Spurs in the initial S106 agreement were non essential. Those that are non essential will be postponed. Those that are essential will now be paid for from the £27 million of public money earmarked for Tottenham.

- obligation to allocate up to 2,500 extra season tickets to Haringey and Enfield residents for the first season in the new stadium and, thereafter, at least to reserve a priority booking for up to 2,500 Haringey and Enfield residents.
I think that is an excellent idea, hopefully they will be at least slightly discounted too. I think clubs have a duty to try and give a bit of help to less well off locals who have been priced out of the game.

Although perhaps they could look into having a certain amount of discounted individual match tickets each week too, seeing as a season ticket is a big commitment. Still a good idea though.

Another great find, Loughton. Sterling work. Deserving of a medal.

Thanks :)

Reading a little more into the s106, not only are they going to look at renaming whl station, they also going to try and rename the eastern part of white hart lane from the station to the high road. The club clearly want to move away from this name, obviously to help with naming rights sponsorship.

Seems a shame to completely lose all connection to this historic name!

Thanks :)

Seems a shame to completely lose all connection to this historic name!

Then again, it's still going to be there, not at the Olympic Stadium, isn't it? :) I mean, it's a historical location, supporters won't let it die no matter how much the sponsors would try...

^^

thats true as the maker of a facbook group to keep the name white hart lane it might seem a bit silly but i have come to terms with the fact that in modern football its away to get ahead, which benefits the team in the future

and like you said in 5 years time or whenever its built i will still say im going to the lane im not going to say im going the Kentucky Fried Chicken Bargain Bucket Arena or something similar whoever sponsers us

Thanks :)

Reading a little more into the s106, not only are they going to look at renaming whl station, they also going to try and rename the eastern part of white hart lane from the station to the high road. The club clearly want to move away from this name, obviously to help with naming rights sponsorship.

Seems a shame to completely lose all connection to this historic name!

I am all for White Hart Lane station being renamed to "Tottenham Hotspur station". However I would be against the actual road being renamed.

And Loughton - I echo Jimmy comments.... Great find on the extra details on the stadium.... So how confident are you that we will soon be seeing a new stadium plan with a capacity increase and what do you expect the capacity to be increased to?!?

it's not a magistrates court but a full blown jury trial. I am sure there are supporters of Bournemouth, West Ham, Portsmouth and Southampton ready to give evidence if they could. Lester Piggotts cell is being cleaned out as we speak. Spurs have been lucky that Levy has kept such tight reins on him.

All small to medium sized clubs who tried to live beyond their means while chasing the dream. All should ask questions of their chairmen who allowed costs to spiral out of control.

Just an update on the train situation. Boris Johnson has made a speech this morning saying that Southeastern and West Anglia suburban lines should be transferred to TFL - ie "Overground" - when the current franchises expire in 2014.

I expect this means (at least) the Enfield and Chingford lines and the Hayes line in Kent. Perhaps the new Stratford - Brimsdown link too.

Ken also said he was in favour of this about a month ago.

So hopefully we can look forward to better trains, more frequent services, better stations, better travel info and a place on the tube map, by the time the new ground opens.

Given the outstanding success of the Overground franchise since it was launched, it is hard to see anyone succeeding against them if they bid.

Incidentally, a new operator - Abellio - has taken over the West Anglia trains from today until 2014. National Express have been really running down the service since they knew they were not being renewed. The delays and the queues outside WHL after games have been significantly worse this season.

I am all for White Hart Lane station being renamed to "Tottenham Hotspur station". However I would be against the actual road being renamed.

And Loughton - I echo Jimmy comments.... Great find on the extra details on the stadium.... So how confident are you that we will soon be seeing a new stadium plan with a capacity increase and what do you expect the capacity to be increased to?!?

As far as I am aware there are no actual roads or streets around the ground called 'white hart lane'.
When talking about 'the Lane' 99.9% of Spurs fans would be referring to the ground itself (although Im sure there have been lots of away fans wandering around north london looking for a 'white hart lane' over the years :))
Personally I think it would be a shame to lose the WHL station name but for the greater good I'd settle for a renaming.

As far as I am aware there are no actual roads or streets around the ground called 'white hart lane'.
When talking about 'the Lane' 99.9% of Spurs fans would be referring to the ground itself (although Im sure there have been lots of away fans wandering around north london looking for a 'white hart lane' over the years :))
Personally I think it would be a shame to lose the WHL station name but for the greater good I'd settle for a renaming.

The road that runs from the Tottenham High Road up to White Hart Lane station (and then quite a long way beyond that) is called 'White Hart Lane'. It was this road that led to both the station and the football ground being named as such.

The road that runs from the Tottenham High Road up to White Hart Lane station (and then quite a long way beyond that) is called 'White Hart Lane'. It was this road that led to both the station and the football ground being named as such.

I thought the road leading from the high road past the station was Creighton Rd? Still im happy to stand corrected on this as im not a local.

On another note this might explain the reference to a college in the updated plans. And I see the cap is now 59k according to this bloke :ohno:

http://www.haringeyindependent.co.uk/news/9514655.Spurs_in_talks_to_open_free_school_in_new_stadium/?

I thought the road leading from the high road past the station was Creighton Rd? Still im happy to stand corrected on this as im not a local.

On another note this might explain the reference to a college in the updated plans. And I see the cap is now 59k according to this bloke :ohno:

http://www.haringeyindependent.co.uk/news/9514655.Spurs_in_talks_to_open_free_school_in_new_stadium/?
I think it turns into Creighton Road just after the station, but the bit between the station and the high road is called White Hart Lane.

I think it turns into Creighton Road just after the station, but the bit between the station and the high road is called White Hart Lane.

White Hart Lane actually runs all the way from the A105 (High Road in Wood Green) to the High Road in Tottenham... probably some 2 to 3kms in total length. A small 300 metre or so portion of it between White Hart Lane station and the A10 is called Creighton Road, but White Hart Lane actually continues in a crescent to the North of this so is an unbroken road from Wood Green all the way to North Tottenham.

White Hart Lane actually runs all the way from the A105 (High Road in Wood Green) to the High Road in Tottenham... probably some 2 to 3kms in total length. A small 300 metre or so portion of it between White Hart Lane station and the A10 is called Creighton Road, but White Hart Lane actually continues in a crescent to the North of this so is an unbroken road from Wood Green all the way to North Tottenham.

Never knew that, just assumed it stayed as Creighton Road all the way after it changed, didn't realise it switched back to WHL again. You learn something new every day :)

I am all for White Hart Lane station being renamed to "Tottenham Hotspur station". However I would be against the actual road being renamed.

And Loughton - I echo Jimmy comments.... Great find on the extra details on the stadium.... So how confident are you that we will soon be seeing a new stadium plan with a capacity increase and what do you expect the capacity to be increased to?!?

I'm no itk but based on the fact the current planning application states there is going to be a second non-material application for the stadium and podium plus the fact the club said they were looking for a small increase, I would guess at an increase back to the original 58,500 wouldn't look unreasonable.

Just an update on the train situation. Boris Johnson has made a speech this morning saying that Southeastern and West Anglia suburban lines should be transferred to TFL - ie "Overground" - when the current franchises expire in 2014.

I expect this means (at least) the Enfield and Chingford lines and the Hayes line in Kent. Perhaps the new Stratford - Brimsdown link too.

Ken also said he was in favour of this about a month ago.

So hopefully we can look forward to better trains, more frequent services, better stations, better travel info and a place on the tube map, by the time the new ground opens.

Given the outstanding success of the Overground franchise since it was launched, it is hard to see anyone succeeding against them if they bid.

Incidentally, a new operator - Abellio - has taken over the West Anglia trains from today until 2014. National Express have been really running down the service since they knew they were not being renewed. The delays and the queues outside WHL after games have been significantly worse this season.

This looks to be great news and a less expensive way of getting our closest stations on the famous tube map. Hopefully based on the current overground timetables, it would be a more regular service too (every 10-15 mins?)

It would make commercial sense for tfl/haringey/spurs to sell stadium naming rights along with naming the station and the whl road name itself as a package. After all emerites have just paid 36m to name the new cable car over the Thames.

I would still rather keep the existing name or one linked to the club myself!

Hot of the press, here is the Mayor's report on rail devolution, published today:

http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/mayors-rail-vision-2012-final.pdf

The bit relevant to Tottenham starts on p.23, and the map is at Figure 13. I am surprised how extensive the Overground service will be. It will cover the Tottenham Hale branch as well as the Seven Sisters branch, and will include services up to Hertford East, well outside London.

The number of services on West Anglia will go up 39%. So if WHL currently gets 4 trains/hour, we can expect 5 or 6, and I assume they will run extra services on matchdays.

Seven Sisters and South Tottenham will become interchange stations, as will Hackney Downs and Hackney Central.

At the end they mention that "Crossrail 2" is planned for 2020, to relieve the Victoria Line. This will feed out from Clapham, via Victoria and Euston, and out to Tottenham via Hackney.

I'm no itk but based on the fact the current planning application states there is going to be a second non-material application for the stadium and podium plus the fact the club said they were looking for a small increase, I would guess at an increase back to the original 58,500 wouldn't look unreasonable.

I have to say that I am becoming increasingly concerned as to how the club plans to achieve those extra 2-4K seats.

Sketches accompanying the latest application show the interior of the southern end of the stadium (previously earmarked for the single tier) as having multiple tiers and a row of corporate boxes.

It seems very much as though they could be planning to revert to the original 58K characterless, soulless, Emirates identikit, uniform bowl design.

Please, for the love of Billy Nick, no!

A truly depressing thought. It would mean a stadium devoid of identity and focus and would increase the chances of it having a persistently tepid atmosphere tenfold.

I'd rather - far rather - stick at 56K and keep the single tier end than increase capacity by getting rid of it.

Besides, there's no need. If they really want to increase the proposed capacity, there are ways of doing so while actually improving on the current design rather than by erasing its saving grace.

Hot of the press, here is the Mayor's report on rail devolution, published today:

http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/mayors-rail-vision-2012-final.pdf

The bit relevant to Tottenham starts on p.23, and the map is at Figure 13. I am surprised how extensive the Overground service will be. It will cover the Tottenham Hale branch as well as the Seven Sisters branch, and will include services up to Hertford East, well outside London.

The number of services on West Anglia will go up 39%. So if WHL currently gets 4 trains/hour, we can expect 5 or 6, and I assume they will run extra services on matchdays.

Seven Sisters and South Tottenham will become interchange stations, as will Hackney Downs and Hackney Central.

At the end they mention that "Crossrail 2" is planned for 2020, to relieve the Victoria Line. This will feed out from Clapham, via Victoria and Euston, and out to Tottenham via Hackney.

Another good find.

Keep up the good work, chaps. Much appreciated!

I have to say that I am becoming increasingly concerned as to how the club plans to achieve those extra 2-4K seats.

I'm no expert but I'm sure there are ways of adding extra seats without changing the layout of the stadium too much. Norwich added nearly 1000 seats to their £26k stadium last year. A friend of mine is a season ticket holder there and he said it was hard to find where they could have added them.

From Wikipedia: In the summer of 2010, work was undertaken to increase the ground's capacity from 26,018 to 27,000. This was achieved by adding a new back row to the Barclay Stand, new front rows to the other three stands, as well as rearranging exit aisles in the Norwich & Peterborough Stand upper tier to make room for new seats.

In a 56k stadium still at the planning stage (no physical barriers), they must be able to squeeze more seats in?!?

Hot of the press, here is the Mayor's report on rail devolution, published today:

http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/mayors-rail-vision-2012-final.pdf

The bit relevant to Tottenham starts on p.23, and the map is at Figure 13. I am surprised how extensive the Overground service will be. It will cover the Tottenham Hale branch as well as the Seven Sisters branch, and will include services up to Hertford East, well outside London.

The number of services on West Anglia will go up 39%. So if WHL currently gets 4 trains/hour, we can expect 5 or 6, and I assume they will run extra services on matchdays.

Seven Sisters and South Tottenham will become interchange stations, as will Hackney Downs and Hackney Central.

At the end they mention that "Crossrail 2" is planned for 2020, to relieve the Victoria Line. This will feed out from Clapham, via Victoria and Euston, and out to Tottenham via Hackney.

Another great find indeed, the doc says an extra 1040 (39%) extra trains per week on West Anglia. Roughly culculating that looks like about 150 extra trains per day, 50 extra trains per branch, 3 extra trains per branch per hour. Obviously this will probably be weighted to peak times (match days).

That would massively improve service and would be up and running by the time the new stadium is completed! :)

http://www.whathouse.co.uk/news/Tottenham-stadium-plans-will-not-feature-affordable-homes-387?

Levy seems to be getting his way on just about everything these days!

I'm no expert but I'm sure there are ways of adding extra seats without changing the layout of the stadium too much. Norwich added nearly 1000 seats to their £26k stadium last year. A friend of mine is a season ticket holder there and he said it was hard to find where they could have added them.

From Wikipedia: In the summer of 2010, work was undertaken to increase the ground's capacity from 26,018 to 27,000. This was achieved by adding a new back row to the Barclay Stand, new front rows to the other three stands, as well as rearranging exit aisles in the Norwich & Peterborough Stand upper tier to make room for new seats.

In a 56k stadium still at the planning stage (no physical barriers), they must be able to squeeze more seats in?!?

Absolutely. There most certainly are other ways of increasing the capacity by up to 5K - all of which would improve the stadium:

- move the stands another row or two closer to the pitch
- fill in the overly dipping corners to some extent
- add a few rows to the back of the single tier end
- less legroom / seat width (both of which tend to be overly generous in modern stadia)

Problem is that each of these changes would require a bit more work by the architects and / or engineers (middle two changes would require a slight redesign of the roof). Sadly, it would be cheaper and easier for the club just to revert to their original, boring design.

I have to say that I am becoming increasingly concerned as to how the club plans to achieve those extra 2-4K seats.

Sketches accompanying the latest application show the interior of the southern end of the stadium (previously earmarked for the single tier) as having multiple tiers and a row of corporate boxes.

It seems very much as though they could be planning to revert to the original 58K characterless, soulless, Emirates identikit, uniform bowl design.

Please, for the love of Billy Nick, no!

A truly depressing thought. It would mean a stadium devoid of identity and focus and would increase the chances of it having a persistently tepid atmosphere tenfold.

I'd rather - far rather - stick at 56K and keep the single tier end than increase capacity by getting rid of it.

Besides, there's no need. If they really want to increase the proposed capacity, there are ways of doing so while actually improving on the current design rather than by erasing its saving grace.
The fears, which I share, may be unfounded (although I haven't read the documents in any detail). Referring to pp 42-43, while the proposal sketch shows the extra tier at the south end, it also looks as though it features in the sketch of what was given consent in 2011 (which we know was not the case), so it may just be sloppiness.

moving stands closer to the pitch would at best give 700 seats all round for each tier. Moving stand further from the pitch increases capacity ie wembley/olympic/emirites stadium because you increase the length of row in every tier all the way round the ground. modern stadiums have to have bigger seats for the obese society. theatres and cinemas have the same dilemma.

moving stands closer to the pitch would at best give 700 seats all round for each tier. Moving stand further from the pitch increases capacity ie wembley/olympic/emirites stadium because you increase the length of row in every tier all the way round the ground. modern stadiums have to have bigger seats for the obese society. theatres and cinemas have the same dilemma.

Spurs have a very limited footprint within which to work. They have no room to create more space beyond the confines of the proposed stadium. They cannot spread out.

They can only move the stands closer to the pitch.

And while you're right to say that adding one row to the front of the stands would only increase capacity by 700 or so (1400 for two rows), it all adds up. Because creating space for an extra row or two by reducing leg room marginally will increase capacity by a further 700 - 1500. And adding a few rows to the back of the single tier end would increase capacity by 500 odd.

Filling in the corners would be the most productive change. Would possibly realise 2500 extra seats.

And bingo....there you have it. The required total of up to 5K extra seats.

And what's more, each of the changes would be a design improvement, creating a more intimate and atmospheric stadium.

A very reputable source on COYS, who has got everything right so far regarding the stadium states there is to be a change to the south 'kop' but it will still be just as amazing. My guess it's either larger with roof extending back (as the mock ups at the Olympic site suggested) or theyll put a small upper tier above it

Oh yes, you're right Superted (and welcome). I missed that bit of ITK!

"has changed slightly but still awesome" were his exact words.

And as you said, a very reputable source. :)

A very reputable source on COYS, who has got everything right so far regarding the stadium states there is to be a change to the south 'kop' but it will still be just as amazing. My guess it's either larger with roof extending back (as the mock ups at the Olympic site suggested) or theyll put a small upper tier above it

Excellent news, if true.

Either option would require a slight roof redesign, though. Otherwise there would a major issue with restricted views as a consequence of the roof steelwork.

Of those two options I'd prefer a bigger single tier stand. It would be more of a focal point without the slight distraction of a small extra tier above it.

Of those two options I'd prefer a bigger single tier stand. It would be more of a focal point without the slight distraction of a small extra tier above it.

Agreed.

But either option would be preferable to reverting to the previous, bland design.

just a random question what is the largest single tied "KOP" Stand in the world?

is it actually in anfield or is there others bigger im assuming some in germany are pretty big because they still have standing

Westfalen?

http://gameintelligence.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/050borussiadortmund.jpg

^^

wish thats what our KOP stand would look like in the future, but probs not

if it were our new ground would be the most itimiditing ground in the league

Some US College stadiums has got big single tiers

Just a quick note. Since starting to post on here I have been looking at some other forums and noticed a few of you post on Glory Glory. I also noticed that there is someone on there with the name Loughtonspurz. Just to confirm we are different people and it's just a coincidence that we've used a similar username. He appears to be some sort of ITK where as I just try and pass on facts that I have found elsewhere online. To try and avoid confusion I've tried to change my username without any luck. SO I've added Loughton1981 under my username instead!

BTW if this is true about a re-design of the single tier and roof this could be just the ticket.

When do you guys think we are likely to see the second application go in? Before the 1st one is completely approved or after? If the first one is sent back for some revisions, this could take a while!!

I used to browse occasionally on Glory Glory (without posting) but it seems to have been taken off the air the past couple of weeks, or at least I can't get in

I used to browse occasionally on Glory Glory (without posting) but it seems to have been taken off the air the past couple of weeks, or at least I can't get in
It was offline for a little while as they had to completely change to a new server / hosting / forum software / etc. It's been up and running for a couple of weeks now, you should be able to get in. It might not work if you're going in from an old bookmark, just try going straight to www.glory-glory.co.uk

Will the design of Tottenham Hotspur football stadium go out to tender?

Surely we need to study at least 3 different proposals before applying for planning permission.
I have doubts about the design of the Spurs stadium shown on those renders and am not alone in my dislike for it.

We also need to look at plans for the area surrounding the stadium which is just as important as the venue itself.

Will the design of Tottenham Hotspur football stadium go out to tender?

Surely we need to study at least 3 different proposals before applying for planning permission.
I have doubts about the design of the Spurs stadium shown on those renders and am not alone in my dislike for it.

We also need to look at plans for the area surrounding the stadium which is just as important as the venue itself.

I think, correct me if I am wrong, the tender for the design of the stadium has already been won by KSS and the general public and fans wouldn't get to see all the various different stadium configurations as this would be decided by the club. Any renders that we get to see are the ones that have been selected by the club.

With regards to the surrounding area, I guess it would be the same case but the Council would be the client.

These single tier stands are very good for supporters as long as they remain seated. I think the millenium stadium has very steeply raked seats in the upper tier and when people stand children and pensioners unable to stand cannot see. And there is a safety risk that if someone should topple over the seat in front they could create a domino effect and a crushing situation if everybody is standing. If the persons in front are seated they would cushion a fall even though they would be squashed. Most football ground standing usually only happens in the shallower lower tiers. At Arsenal you only get a seat at half time because everybody is standing in the away supporters during the game. The recent West Ham v Millwall match the Millwall fans stood for the whole game in the steeper upper tier but there were only 16 rows but it looked an accident waiting to happen.

There was a fair amount of consultation a year or two ago when the current designs were being drawn up. This lead directly to the stands being moved closer to the pitch and the kop stand being implemented. The club have listened to the fans on this. Now it's just a matter of pushing everything through, no point going back to square one with completely new designs.

Does anyone think its possible that Levy was waiting for the verdict of Harrys tax case before making any new announcements on the stadium?

Its probably just me clutching at the usal straws but now that Harry is off the hook, wouldn't it be nice to hear a statment from the club on the NDP to celebrate!

Does anyone think its possible that Levy was waiting for the verdict of Harrys tax case before making any new announcements on the stadium?

Its probably just me clutching at the usal straws but now that Harry is off the hook, wouldn't it be nice to hear a statment from the club on the NDP to celebrate!

It is all going Ley's way. The bookies who like punters to lose their money on favourites have made Redknapp for the England job knowing he won't get it while Trevor Brooking is at the F.A. It's been like watching Coronation Street.

I wonder whether we'll see a new design that has a South stand where the first tier goes back to where the middle tier would finish and then a top tier that is in line with the rest of the stadium? Not quite a 'kop' style stand just a reasonably standard two tier stand with no corp facilities?

I'm sure most of you have seen what the site to the North of the stadium currently looks like but for those that haven't, here are a couple of pic's.

http://www.estatesgazette.com/blogs/london-residential-research/assets_c/2012/01/Copy%20of%20SAM_1168-thumb-500x374-151002.jpghttp://www.estatesgazette.com/blogs/london-residential-research/assets_c/2012/01/Copy%20of%20SAM_1171-thumb-500x374-150994.jpg

Looks ready to go as soon as we get the green light.

It was offline for a little while as they had to completely change to a new server / hosting / forum software / etc. It's been up and running for a couple of weeks now, you should be able to get in. It might not work if you're going in from an old bookmark, just try going straight to www.glory-glory.co.uk

Thanks, that worked. I was using an old link straight to the stadium thread.

By the way, does anyone know if the planning meeting on Monday will be broadcast on the internet like last year's one?

what?! they are preparing the ground yet?

Thanks, that worked. I was using an old link straight to the stadium thread.

By the way, does anyone know if the planning meeting on Monday will be broadcast on the internet like last year's one?

I believe so. Try this link then click on view webcast.

http://www.minutes.haringey.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=728&MId=5266&Ver=4

I don't know if I could sit through the whole meeting. Even though there's going to be some amazing outcomes (one way or another), I can't imagine it's going to be that riviting to watch.

I might be wrong though. Did anyone watch the last one online??

what?! they are preparing the ground yet?

They've been doing so for the past year.

The area shown to the immediate foreground in the picture is where the supermarket will stand. And work on that will start this summer.

Work on the stadium will start next summer.

I wonder whether we'll see a new design that has a South stand where the first tier goes back to where the middle tier would finish and then a top tier that is in line with the rest of the stadium? Not quite a 'kop' style stand just a reasonably standard two tier stand with no corp facilities?

I hope not.

It would be a bit like that famous Churchill quote when he was introduced to Sir Clive Bossom:

"Bossom? Bossom?.........Neither one thing nor the other."

Does anyone think its possible that Levy was waiting for the verdict of Harrys tax case before making any new announcements on the stadium?

Its probably just me clutching at the usal straws but now that Harry is off the hook, wouldn't it be nice to hear a statment from the club on the NDP to celebrate!

Ha! Ever the optimist, topalex!

No, I don't think there will be any announcement to coincide with Harry's victory in the courts.

But, as mentioned, the planning committee hearing for our latest planning submission is imminent. So there could well be some sort of announcement shortly afterwards.

Did anyone watch the last one online??
Yes, I was sad enough to watch it and I will be doing so again :lol:

Although I admit to keeping an extra browser window open to look at other stuff during the more tedious parts :)

Yes, I was sad enough to watch it and I will be doing so again :lol:

Although I admit to keeping an extra browser window open to look at other stuff during the more tedious parts :)

Would be great if you could post some highlights on here to save the rest of us the tedium!!

My wife was bored enough watching the Liverpool v Spurs 0-0 this week, can you imagine I said to her "this Monday we're going to watch a Spurs planning meeting!!" I can't see that happening! :lol:

It is all going Ley's way. The bookies who like punters to lose their money on favourites have made Redknapp for the England job knowing he won't get it while Trevor Brooking is at the F.A. It's been like watching Coronation Street.

Really? I would love to believe that. But I fear that the campaign for Harry's appointment as England manager is now an unstoppable train.

What's the story with Brooking and Redknapp?

Would be great if you could post some highlights on here to save the rest of us the tedium!!

My wife was bored enough watching the Liverpool v Spurs 0-0 this week, can you imagine I said to her "this Monday we're going to watch a Spurs planning meeting!!" I can't see that happening! :lol:
What's that sound? Ahhh, I think it's divorce papers landing on the doormat ;)

I think, correct me if I am wrong, the tender for the design of the stadium has already been won by KSS and the general public and fans wouldn't get to see all the various different stadium configurations as this would be decided by the club. Any renders that we get to see are the ones that have been selected by the club.

With regards to the surrounding area, I guess it would be the same case but the Council would be the client.

I'm not sure that Spurs ever had any other architects involved.

KSS were brought on board seven or eight years ago by Paul Kemsley, I believe - originally to draw up plans for the failed Abridge training ground application. As far as I know, no other architects were given the chance to win the new WHL job.

I think they should do a half-hour highlights package of the planning meeting for Tuesday, presented by Lineker, with Crooks and Mabbutt on the sofa for expert analysis.

Every time a new clip starts they should flash a clock in the top left corner saying how many minutes (hours?) have elapsed.

With a special guest appearance from Alan Shearer, to give an outsiders point of view:

"So, Alan, what did you think of the councillor losing out on his demands re paragraph forty, subsection seven, of the water and sewage section of the planning application?"

"He'll be disappointed with that."

http://www.whathouse.co.uk/news/Tottenham-stadium-plans-will-not-feature-affordable-homes-387?

Levy seems to be getting his way on just about everything these days!

Someone on Spurscommunity who works in social housing has posted that it is quite common now for developments to be granted permission without any affordable housing.

Since the govt took away grant subsidy, housing associations are less inclined to buy into private schemes. Also the economic downturn means that tenants themselves can no longer afford the "affordable" housing.

Councils are realising that insisting on a quota of affordable homes risks projects not going ahead at all. When the going was good, they could piggy-back onto private schemes, but not now.

I think the priority for local residents for season tickets, coupled with this "free school" mullarkey, are a sup to those on the council who are worried that there will be no "social" aspect to the scheme if the affordable housing falls away.

So I think the club will get away with this. In any event, in Tottenham the position with social housing is the antithesis of the position in most of the rest of London . If anything, there is too much social housing in Tottenham, and not enought private.

With a special guest appearance from Alan Shearer, to give an outsiders point of view:

"So, Alan, what did you think of the councillor losing out on his demands re paragraph forty, subsection seven, of the water and sewage section of the planning application?"

"He'll be disappointed with that."

It's funny because it's true :lol:

Not sure if this was already reported on the forum?

Haringey Council planning officers have recommended that the Council's planning committee revise its section 106 agreement with Tottenham Hotspur Football Club (THFC) for its proposed new Spurs Stadium scheme, according to the committee report (http://www.minutes.haringey.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=5266&T=10).

The revised section 106 agreement proposes to reduce the funding obligations from £16 million to under £0.5m and remove the need to provide any affordable housing. The Council has said that the scheme is not financially viable and the revisions have been recommended to improve the scheme’s viability.

The new outline planning application for the housing element of the proposed NDP scheme, contained in the committee report, proposed to increase the number of flats to 285. The Council officers’ recommendation is to allow all of these to be sold on the open market "to boost development value and support overall NDP Scheme viability".

Full article can be read here (http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2012/february/haringey-considers-reducing-spurs-section-106-agreement-liabilities-by-16m/)

Now there is no obligation to provide social housing I wonder how much Spurs could generate from the sale of 285 new homes? Would this revenue significantly off set the cost of building the flats?

In addition to this how much do you think the sale or lease of a supermarket would generate?

Not sure if this was already reported on the forum?

Haringey Council planning officers have recommended that the Council's planning committee revise its section 106 agreement with Tottenham Hotspur Football Club (THFC) for its proposed new Spurs Stadium scheme, according to the committee report (http://www.minutes.haringey.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=5266&T=10).

The revised section 106 agreement proposes to reduce the funding obligations from £16 million to under £0.5m and remove the need to provide any affordable housing. The Council has said that the scheme is not financially viable and the revisions have been recommended to improve the scheme’s viability.

The new outline planning application for the housing element of the proposed NDP scheme, contained in the committee report, proposed to increase the number of flats to 285. The Council officers’ recommendation is to allow all of these to be sold on the open market "to boost development value and support overall NDP Scheme viability".

Full article can be read here (http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2012/february/haringey-considers-reducing-spurs-section-106-agreement-liabilities-by-16m/)

Now there is no obligation to provide social housing I wonder how much Spurs could generate from the sale of 285 new homes? Would this revenue significantly off set the cost of building the flats?

In addition to this how much do you think the sale or lease of a supermarket would generate?

The idea of building the flats is that it covers the cost of building plus some towards the stadium, same with the supermarket, that's why some people call this an "Enabling Development".

If the flats sold at an average profit of £200k after selling costs. This would be £57m towards the project :). I wouldn't like to guess how much profit the supermarket would generate. Maybe others who know a bit about this market could help.

Good spot, Vikspur

I hope that means the permission itself will be a formality at the meeting. Social housing fetches only about 60% of open-market value, so it will be very significant for the funding of the stadium if the quota for social housing (50% of the flats) is overturned.

As for prices, a decent 2-bed flat in N17 is fetching around £230,000. So I think a brand spanking new modern 2-bed flat could reasonably fetch £250,000, possibly higher.

I have lost track a bit of what the latest amendments say, but I read somewhere that the listed buildings on the High Road to the south are being removed. If so, EH must have been overruled, as they kicked up a real fuss about that last time.

I have lost track a bit of what the latest amendments say, but I read somewhere that the listed buildings on the High Road to the south are being removed. If so, EH must have been overruled, as they kicked up a real fuss about that last time.

This could turn out to be true but at the moment that is just 'here say'. There is a separate application due to be submitted after the current one which may well include this.

Well I actually hope that they dont remove those buildings. Sure, it would free up alot if space, but I liked the look of them standing there adrift representing a throw back to spurs' past and the current stadium setting.

Well I actually hope that they dont remove those buildings. Sure, it would free up alot if space, but I liked the look of them standing there adrift representing a throw back to spurs' past and the current stadium setting.

I agree with you, in the aerial renders we see they do seem to fit quite nicely. However I have read elsewhere that the club believes that if you are standing on the high Road in front of these buildings the view and overall appearance of the stadium and podium would be restricted. I can see this point too. Maybe keeping a couple of them may be a compromise.

Well I actually hope that they dont remove those buildings. Sure, it would free up alot if space, but I liked the look of them standing there adrift representing a throw back to spurs' past and the current stadium setting.

When considering the old plans I agree with you. However when looking at the recently leaked pictures (that rather tellingly were then withdrawn by the company that drew them up) associated with the new plans I thought that the renders that did not include the heritage buildings looked much better. It gave an uncluttered entrance to the stadium, as well as a much better view of it. It opened up more space and also ensured that the Spurs shop beneath the podium was not obscured by the 4 buildings that do not fit in with the asthetics of the new stadium and it's surrounds.

When considering the old plans I agree with you. However when looking at the recently leaked pictures (that rather tellingly were then withdrawn by the company that drew them up) associated with the new plans I thought that the renders that did not include the heritage buildings looked much better. It gave an uncluttered entrance to the stadium, as well as a much better view of it. It opened up more space and also ensured that the Spurs shop beneath the podium was not obscured by the 4 buildings that do not fit in with the asthetics of the new stadium and it's surrounds.

I absolutely agree. In a way, it would have made more sense if they had insisted on the whole terrace remaining (as with Wilmington House etc at the north of the ground). Whatever heritage value the "southern" buildings had is lost when the surroundings are demolished.

Having 4, detached, 19th century buildings, sticking out in the middle of a state of the art 21st century development, virtually blocking the main point of entry to it, is totally absurd.

Speaking of whether we will keep the listed buildings or not, do we know what will be happening to the Bill Nicholson Gates if we don't keep the listed buildings (as I believe they were to remain between two of the listed buildings with a statue of Bill Nic being added to stand between the gates)?

'Having 4, detached, 19th century buildings, sticking out in the middle of a state of the art 21st century development, virtually blocking the main point of entry to it, is totally absurd.'

Couldnt agree more. Whilst I'd accept almost any compromise these days just to see the bugger get built, those 4 old buildings just do not compliment the devlopment in any way IMHO. Ok I understand why there were still in the plans in the first place and would accept them if they have to stay but...nah...surely not?

As to the Bill Nich gates and statue, I can see those looking great somewhere along the new access road from WHL station?

As to the Bill Nich gates and statue, I can see those looking great somewhere along the new access road from WHL station?

Having the gates on the new "White Hart Way" would be a good idea, otherwise they would probably go in the museum or just in the open space where the old buildings currently are, as some sort of feature/photo opportunity point. I think the golden cockerel statue is expected to be there too.

Move over Levy this is the man for the stadium developement.

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/politics/harry_can_build_seafront_flats_without_affordable_housing_1_2972427

I saw this from an interview after the Newcastle game. Almost certainly nothing in it. Just Harry improvising a train of thought to the media as he so often does. But worth posting anyway:


The Spurs boss, when asked of the club's ambitions if £70 million were to be invested, announced his support for chairman Daniel Levy and insists that the club is run well.

“I don't think the club would ever put themselves in trouble," Redknapp added. "He [chairman Daniel Levy] doesn't run the club that way, he runs the club correctly here. It's a well run club, that's for sure and that's how it should be. I don't think he'd ever put the club in trouble.

“At the moment we hold 36,000 people. I think when they get a 66,000 stadium, I think it will be different again.

“They've invested big over the years, they've invested without being able to invest like the Manchester Citys of this world but they've invested in top players and I'm sure they'll continue to do that.”

I have seen the new plans....
Basically the same stadium.... But turned 90 degrees. The center circle is on top of the High Road apparently. In the plans The Love lane estate is demolished and a walkway goes from a refurbished WHL station to the new ground.

Looks amazing.


In the drawings I have seen it goes underneath the ground. Think Fore street tunnel but on the High Road. It's pretty radical and will change the whole perspective of the area. Apparently work is going to start at the end of the year.

The pictures were hard copy, I am pretty sure people would lose jobs if I took a pic and posted, so I won't do that.

I know it sounds mental, but I'd hope people know I am no WUM.

http://www.spurscommunity.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=2660102#post2660102

Hmmmm......not buying it.

Hmmmm......not buying it.

He's a N17 copper.

Hmmmm......not buying it.

Indeed.

Load of utter shit.

(no offence to DELT, to whom thanks for posting!)

I 100% believe it to be true and it's clearly not made up nonsense.

Incidentally, I'd better get to bed, if I don't get in there soon Scarlett Johansson and Kelly Brook are going to be hogging the covers again.

Hmmmm......not buying it.

Having the actual stadium going over the road does sound very far fetched. However I think it has been mentioned on here before that the podium could well stretch over the road to give direct access to the station, with the road going underneath.

That would be cool and would increase the size of the public space that has been reduced by the new design of the flats.

Having the actual stadium going over the road does sound very far fetched. However I think it has been mentioned on here before that the podium could well stretch over the road to give direct access to the station, with the road going underneath.

That would be cool and would increase the size of the public space that has been reduced by the new design of the flats.

That is a good point Loughton.... The podium to extend over the road would actually be a brilliant solution to stadium access and, as you say, contribute a lot to public space. I would imagine that the cost of achieving this would be prohibitively high though?.... Not only that but wouldn't the disruption to a pretty major traffic route also make this option prohibitive?

Is it tonight that the council meeting takes place to (hopefully) approve the revised North/South enabling developments and the new section 106 costs? Would it be unusual for the council to oppose plans already recommended by the planning officer? Does anyone know how these things work?

Also who is going to step up to the mark and post the updates from the meeting on here? (I would volunteer but I am going to be busy watching some pots boil and waiting for some paint to dry :) )

That is a good point Loughton.... The podium to extend over the road would actually be a brilliant solution to stadium access and, as you say, contribute a lot to public space. I would imagine that the cost of achieving this would be prohibitively high though?.... Not only that but wouldn't the disruption to a pretty major traffic route also make this option prohibitive?

Is it tonight that the council meeting takes place to (hopefully) approve the revised North/South enabling developments and the new section 106 costs? Would it be unusual for the council to oppose plans already recommended by the planning officer? Does anyone know how these things work?

It is very unusual but not unprecedented. It happened in Bristol for the proposed Sainsburys store at Ashton Gate. There was, however, pandemonium from the general public stirred up by the local press and it was approved on a second hearing. Given the high profile the spurs saga has had recently, i'd be absolutely flabbergasted were it rejected.....but then stranger things have happened.

On the podium over the road idea - sounds a decent proposal, as long as it will be high enough for double decker bus clearance!
I can't understand the logic in the idea of turning the pitch 90 degrees, and having the centre circle above the high road. Nonesense.

Dismissed by our best source re: stadium developments on COYS.

On the podium over the road idea - sounds a decent proposal, as long as it will be high enough for double decker bus.

They did something similar at mile end to link two parks with a bridge over the road. Enough for a dd bus.

Also who is going to step up to the mark and post the updates from the meeting on here? (I would volunteer but I am going to be busy watching some pots boil and waiting for some paint to dry :) )
I'm gonna be watching it (the water has been cut off and I'm out of paint ;)) so I'll post updates if I hear anything interesting. I'm not architecturally inclined or planning law savvy, just here because it's Spurs related, so apologies in advance if I don't mention something that turns out to be significant!

I'm gonna be watching it (the water has been cut off and I'm out of paint ;)) so I'll post updates if I hear anything interesting. I'm not architecturally inclined or planning law savvy, just here because it's Spurs related, so apologies in advance if I don't mention something that turns out to be significant!

Thanks EJG. Taking one for the team!!

I'm gonna be watching it (the water has been cut off and I'm out of paint ;)) so I'll post updates if I hear anything interesting. I'm not architecturally inclined or planning law savvy, just here because it's Spurs related, so apologies in advance if I don't mention something that turns out to be significant!

Well done mate and thanks. I look forward to seeing your updates.

Let's keep our fingers crossed for a good result tonight.

Don't know how long this will take but I'm gonna have to be off at 10PM. No doubt it'll be boring until then and that's when all the good stuff will start :)

Just going through some very exciting slides at the moment...

A slide was just shown of the new scheme, the one which has the four listed buildings missing, and they said that despite not being on the slide the four listed buildings ARE being retained in the revised scheme.

I think the meeting is webcast here:-

http://www.haringey.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/73190

It will be THRILLING, I have no doubt!!

:dance:

"By having no affordable homes, the amount of children living in the new flats is expected to be halved, thus causing much less pressure on local schools."

Interesting the things they have to consider, and how everything affects everything else.

Nothing so far we didn't already know, apart from the fact that the listed buildings will be retained.

The new S106 calls for the public space to be used for a minimum of 12 public events per year, up from 6 in the previous S106.

who's the bloke the misfits are firing the questions to?

This councillor Schmitz seems to like the sound of his own voice.

They're taking a ten minute break, Spurs will be making presentations afterwards (hopefully revealing something worth talking about!). The council leader said they were half way through, so maybe it'll finish by ten, which would be useful :)

Ohh, Donna Cullen is speaking now.

Nothing hugely interesting, just saying they should approve the scheme, club is committed to Tottenham, etc..

They just describing the new scheme now, supermarket, new flats, etc.. Just stuff we've already seen from the council web site.

Gotta bugger off unfortunately, been a bit more interesting since 9PM. Now I'm going I'm sure they'll reveal all the good stuff! It's been umm... fun... :D

Gotta bugger off unfortunately, been a bit more interesting since 9PM. Now I'm going I'm sure they'll reveal all the good stuff! It's been umm... fun... :D

Thanks again EJG!

Ooh I've logged in just in time for some sort of vote!.......

Item 6 (whatever that is) has been approved.

Item 8 (whatever that is) has been approved.

Item 9 (land off Park Lane) has been approved.

Agree the new s106. Supermarket agreed based on conditions set out. Flats agreed based on conditions. Schmit and hare wanted conditions to come back to planning but there will not.

Another hurdle overcome

From what I could make out all aspects have been approved subject to a few consultations, mayors final approval etc, etc.

This thing might finally be properly getting off the ground!

EJG - thanks for the updates earlier.... Seems in true goalhanger style I managed to finish off the glory part after you'd done all the hard work earlier! :)

I can confirm that it was a unanimous 'yes' vote to all aspects of the new application.
Yes...I rather sadly tuned in to the last half hour or so as well.:banana:

That Demirci guy didn't let the doubters have a chance at the end!:)

1 planning meeting down 2 to go correct?

1 planning meeting down 2 to go correct?

well that s106, the north and the south. the only one spurs will now be involved if the apparent change to the stadium, podium and the removal of the 4 listed buildings. Cant think of another theyd be involved.

Unless its getting those nobs schmitz and hare removed from the council :bash:

EJG - thanks for the updates earlier.... Seems in true goalhanger style I managed to finish off the glory part after you'd done all the hard work earlier! :)
Haha, no problem, I consider myself to be the selfless engine room in midfield who allows the superstars to grab all the glory up front ;)

Aaaannyway, great result tonight. One step closer to the day we can get a formal announcement that it's all systems go and the spades are in the ground :cheers: :banana:

There's a club statement (https://tottenhamhotspur.com/spurs/News/club-statement-130212.page?) about tonight's meeting on the official web site:

The Club can announce that, following a meeting of the London Borough of Haringey Planning Sub-Committee on 13 February, the design improvements to the Northumberland Development Project together with the revisions to the Section 106 planning agreement have been approved.

Daniel Levy, Chairman, said:

"We are delighted with these three unanimous decisions and are grateful for the support of the Council and those right across the community who have who expressed such enthusiasm for our plans.

"We welcome the public sector coming together to further regeneration in an area with such a real need. We are proud of our roots in Tottenham and we are committed to seeking to deliver a world class new stadium, associated developments and the ensuing benefits of employment opportunities, economic uplift and community gains.

"There is still much work to be done and we shall keep everyone connected with the Club updated over the coming months with our progress."

It seems very quite with regards to news on this online. I was expecting at least a small flurry of articles on the matter after last nights decision. Perhaps tha media see this as a done deal and feel they have reported on it enough.

Now looking forward to seeing revised plans for the podium, shop fronts on Park Lane and the walkway from the station. I wonder how long it'll be before we see any of this?

Yeah, I suppose to they see it as simply an update of permission that was already granted so probably can't be bothered to report on it.

1 planning meeting down 2 to go correct?

That's what it sounds like.

The final item on the agenda for the meeting on the Haringey web site was "Date of next meeting: Special Planning Sub Committee – Monday, 20th February at 7pm," so I assume that's the next Spurs related meeting rather than the next meeting in general.

Yeah, I suppose to they see it as simply an update of permission that was already granted so probably can't be bothered to report on it.

That's what it sounds like.

The final item on the agenda for the meeting on the Haringey web site was "Date of next meeting: Special Planning Sub Committee – Monday, 20th February at 7pm," so I assume that's the next Spurs related meeting rather than the next meeting in general.

So another Monday night in at the computer??? :)

well that s106, the north and the south. the only one spurs will now be involved if the apparent change to the stadium, podium and the removal of the 4 listed buildings. Cant think of another theyd be involved.


So, are we expecting the new revised capacity for the stadium to be revealed at the next meeting?

Although there will be future planning meetings to iron out certain details and stipulations, this s106 basically gives Spurs the green light to secure/announce the funding for the NDP.
The banks, financers, sponsors, loan sharks etc were not going to commit until this s106 was in place so maybe we will now hear more about how this will be funded and naming rights, sponsorship deals.

my optimism knows no bounds!

Although there will be future planning meetings to iron out certain details and stipulations, this s106 basically gives Spurs the green light to secure/announce the funding for the NDP.
The banks, financers, sponsors, loan sharks etc were not going to commit until this s106 was in place so maybe we will now hear more about how this will be funded and naming rights, sponsorship deals.

my optimism knows no bounds!

We heard a month or so ago that there were 6 interested parties for sponsorship including Qatar Airways. Has anyone heard anything or would like to speculate with regards to who the other 5 parties might be?

We heard a month or so ago that there were 6 interested parties for sponsorship including Qatar Airways. Has anyone heard anything or would like to speculate with regards to who the other 5 parties might be?

Chick King, The Hotspur Cafe, The Bricklayers Arms, Polski Sklep and Colonel's "Tasty" Burgers :)

My guesses would include the following from the Far East:
China Mobile, China Life, Haier, Samsung

The following from the US:
Blackberry, FedEx, Bloomberg, Accenture

The following from Europe:
Vodafone, RedBull, Barclays

And the following from India:
Tata/TCS, Taj Group.

An option out of leftfield could be an energy company (i.e Gazprom or Petronas) looking to create a new 'clean energy' brand and promote this as a seperate company to get away from their gas and oil tradition.

Looks like the Gooners are getting worried...

http://www.onlinegooner.com/article.php?section=exclusive&id=2610

Pfft. Mole hills.

I can't speak to whether or not this is an appropriate use of funds according to English law, but I don't blame anyone for asking for handouts. If someone is willing to subsidize what you want to do, then good on ya for being so shrewd. If any public official (and we get this a lot in the States) is so daft as to direct money towards stuff they shouldn't, that's their fault and the fault of those electing/leaving them in office.

Looks like the Gooners are getting worried...

http://www.onlinegooner.com/article.php?section=exclusive&id=2610

I thought the most interesting bit was the last sentence!
Sorry goons...you're too late :lol:

Seriously though, I dont know the details but Im fairly sure the Ars* had their fair share of help from public funding, whether directly or indirectly, to get the emirates off the ground. I doubt Id use the term 'worried though..bitter maybe?.. this guys just had his nose put out of joint after so many years of lording it over us. :cheers:

when, conceivably, do you guys think spades will be in the ground in relation to the new stadium? it would be nice to see tottenham capatalise on their current success and build on it in a brand new stadium! :)

when, conceivably, do you guys think spades will be in the ground in relation to the new stadium? it would be nice to see tottenham capatalise on their current success and build on it in a brand new stadium! :)

The new S106 gives an indicative timetable as follows

'The club now proposes an indicative constructive timetable for its three phase NDP scheme as follows:
Phase 1 (Northern Development) with the supermarket, club and other commercial space - start in Autumn 2012 with completion in 2014.
The new stadium (Phase 2) start in summer 2013 with completion in 2016 (Possible 2/3 completion 2015).
Phase 3 (Southern Development) with housing and commercial space - subject to being granted full planning permission, start in 2016 following demolition of the existing stadium'

This would be the best guess of when spades will be in the ground. :)
Three more seasons at WHL as we know it!

Someone has posted a new picture of the area around the retained buildings on the Glory Glory forum. I can't seem to access it myself but if anyone else can (EJG? JimB?) and can post on here, that would be great.

Although there will be future planning meetings to iron out certain details and stipulations, this s106 basically gives Spurs the green light to secure/announce the funding for the NDP.
The banks, financers, sponsors, loan sharks etc were not going to commit until this s106 was in place so maybe we will now hear more about how this will be funded and naming rights, sponsorship deals.

my optimism knows no bounds!

I think this was the final piece in the jigsaw insofar as the northern development is concerned (ie the supermarket). I don't think any further tweaks are needed to the design, or to the planning documents for that.

However, there is a rumour that there is another planning application in the offing for amendments to the stadium itself, including an increase in capacity to around 60k. That might not be a walk in the park like last night was. TFL and/or the police could object or the council could insist on s.106 payments for infrastructure. Spurs might find it harder to wriggle out of those this time around (or has a deal already been done behind the scenes whereby the council let Spurs off the first lot s.106 obligations, knowing that Spurs will have to accept the second lot of s.106 obligations if they want 60k?)

So, even though in theory Spurs could now go ahead with the funding agreement and the lease for the supermarket, I think they will probably wait until planning has been secured for the amended plans for the main stadium itself. Otherwise they might be weakening their position re the changes to the stadium. Potential funders might also be unwilling to release funds until the full amended scheme has full approval.

I expect that the amendments for the stadium will be submitted very shortly, but the council and the authorities will need at least a couple of months to mull over them before the next planning meeting, like last time. So I guess we're looking at mid to late spring for that.

Levy’s statement last night says “there is still a lot of work to do … we will keep you appraised over the coming months” and the timetable discussed last night was for work to start in Autumn 2012. So we are still a few months away from spades in the ground yet.

Looks like the Gooners are getting worried...

http://www.onlinegooner.com/article.php?section=exclusive&id=2610

Typically ignorant, self important, whingeing gooner. In response:

1. None of the public money that will be spent will go directly towards building the stadium or any of the enabling development. It will all go towards infrastructure improvements and job creation in the area of north Tottenham.

2. So Spurs (and Daniel Levy, in particular) squeezed a better S106 deal out of Haringey than Arsenal got out of Islington. Hats off to Levy. He just plays the negotiation game better than anyone at Arsenal. They cannot take the moral high ground. If they had had the smarts and the balls to negotiate their way out of their S106 obligations, then it is a cast iron certainty that they would have done so. They didn't. Their bad. That is all.

3. Arsenal may not have received public money (as claimed by some Spurs fans) but they did receive an enormous leg up from Islington council in the form of a raft of Compulsory Purchase Orders on commercial properties in the area. More than 80 businesses were forced to move or close down, just so that Arsenal could make a profit on building new homes.

4. The author of the article is being completely disingenuous when bemoaning the fact that Arsenal had to pay £60 million to build a new waste and recycling plant for the council as part of their S106 agreement. Islington only needed a new waste and recycling plant because the old one had been sited where the Emirates stadium now stands. What did he expect - that Arsenal would get a huge chunk of inner London land for free? Duh!

5. Sure, developers are often forced by councils to contribute towards "planning gain". But equally, when a development is much needed but much in doubt (as the NDP undoubtedly was), councils often offer enticements to secure that development. That's all that has happened here. Perfectly normal and legit. Long term, the area will benefit enormously.

6. Is he really begrudging the area of Tottenham much needed investment, purely because he's a bitter gooner? How small minded can he be? The area around the Emirates has benefited from years of investment in transport infrastructure. It is well served by many tube stations and two lines. The area around north Tottenham is poorly served by one line, with the nearest station more than a 20 minute walk away. Frankly, this gooner's moaning about a comparatively tiny amount of long overdue public investment in north Tottenham is selfishness in the extreme. Fuck him.

I think this was the final piece in the jigsaw insofar as the northern development is concerned (ie the supermarket). I don't think any further tweaks are needed to the design, or to the planning documents for that.

However, there is a rumour that there is another planning application in the offing for amendments to the stadium itself, including an increase in capacity to around 60k. That might not be a walk in the park like last night was. TFL and/or the police could object or the council could insist on s.106 payments for infrastructure. Spurs might find it harder to wriggle out of those this time around (or has a deal already been done behind the scenes whereby the council let Spurs off the first lot s.106 obligations, knowing that Spurs will have to accept the second lot of s.106 obligations if they want 60k?)

So, even though in theory Spurs could now go ahead with the funding agreement and the lease for the supermarket, I think they will probably wait until planning has been secured for the amended plans for the main stadium itself. Otherwise they might be weakening their position re the changes to the stadium. Potential funders might also be unwilling to release funds until the full amended scheme has full approval.

I expect that the amendments for the stadium will be submitted very shortly, but the council and the authorities will need at least a couple of months to mull over them before the next planning meeting, like last time. So I guess we're looking at mid to late spring for that.

Levy’s statement last night says “there is still a lot of work to do … we will keep you appraised over the coming months” and the timetable discussed last night was for work to start in Autumn 2012. So we are still a few months away from spades in the ground yet.

I can't imagine that there will be any objections to the proposed capacity increase. An extra 4K people isn't going to change matters greatly.

Besides, all sides are now desperate for the NDP to go ahead. The game has been played and Levy has won. That is perfectly clear. The council are his puppies now - ready to roll over at his command to have their tummies tickled.

Short of Spurs proposing anything outrageous, further applications will sail through the committee stage as smoothly as last night's proposed changes.

3. Arsenal may not have received public money (as claimed by some Spurs fans) but they did receive an enormous leg up from Islington council in the form of a raft of Compulsory Purchase Orders on commercial properties in the area. More than 80 businesses were forced to move or close down, just so that Arsenal could make a profit on building new homes.
Not only that but the valuation of the CPOs was reported as being well under market rate - and that was before considering that Arsenal then converted the land from business to residential use. It was a scandal how that never went to public enquiry.

Conrast it with Spurs who (so far) have not required a single CPO and yet have privately purchased all land/property required for their new development (bar one single property).

I can't imagine that there will be any objections to the proposed capacity increase. An extra 4K people isn't going to change matters greatly.

Besides, all sides are now desperate for the NDP to go ahead. The game has been played and Levy has won. That is perfectly clear. The council are his puppies now - ready to roll over at his command to have their tummies tickled.

Short of Spurs proposing anything outrageous, further applications will sail through the committee stage as smoothly as last night's proposed changes.

I agree with Jim here.... I though it was reasonably clear last night that a couple of the councillors (Hare and Schmitz?) didn't seem to really want to approve the scheme but seemed to be petrified of not approving it and so had to go with the flow.

I can't imagine that there will be any objections to the proposed capacity increase. An extra 4K people isn't going to change matters greatly.

Besides, all sides are now desperate for the NDP to go ahead. The game has been played and Levy has won. That is perfectly clear. The council are his puppies now - ready to roll over at his command to have their tummies tickled.

Short of Spurs proposing anything outrageous, further applications will sail through the committee stage as smoothly as last night's proposed changes.

I hope you're right about the 4k Jim (and I'm not saying I'm expecting the council to object to the increase, only e.g. the police or TFL).

But overall yes, Levy has got a much better deal out of everyone over the past few weeks and months than what was on the table in 2010, and he should be applauded for rattling a few cages to get it.

Serious question: At this point is the possible 4k addition really worth it? I would've thought that the design we've all now grown familiar with was taken to such level that preliminary engineering had already been poised to go, meaning further changes just mean delays and deliberation over cosmetics? If you're talking about premium seating then it may well prove worth the investment, but if it's just more general seating will the ROI be enough?

I ask because it seemed everyone was so happy with the last edition of the final product (by comparison).

Answer, we don't know. We haven't seen the new plans for the stadium. Presumabley though the club has done its maths and the extra 4k is to increase project viability, just like the extra 85 flats, the extra floor on the supermarket, the reduction in the S106 obligation etc. It all adds up.

So is the stadium definintely going ahead now?

An extra 4k can increase its viability? Not denying you, Rob, it just seems a trifle thing to mess with at this point considering how long this has been dragging on. I also don't know how it could significantly improve the design, but maybe that's just me.

All things being equal would you rather take the latest design and see it built in year X, or would you prefer the additional 4K if it meant year X+1 and another 10M in cost?

The only thing about about building it at current planned 56 and not.the extra 4 or im some sources 10 k seats is once you build it its very hard to increase capacity. Im assuming the emirates would be very difficult to expand short of either arsenal leaving for a year or so etc and wheather it is actually allowed under current infrastucture isnt the rail services stretched badly. I wonder if the emirates hadnt have been.built spurs and arsenal would have considered ground share a new build. Sure the fans would have loved that

Any historians about? Am i right in thinking that arsenal played at the lane during ww2 as higbury was requitioned did the nld take place during the war. I should learn these things im.starting a history degree in the next year

An extra 4k can increase its viability? Not denying you, Rob, it just seems a trifle thing to mess with at this point considering how long this has been dragging on. I also don't know how it could significantly improve the design, but maybe that's just me.

All things being equal would you rather take the latest design and see it built in year X, or would you prefer the additional 4K if it meant year X+1 and another 10M in cost?

If you consider a conservative average income of £1,000 a seat each season (£40 x 25 games) then that is £4,000,000 of extra revenue a year. I would assume that an extra 4,000 seats could be achieved with relatively minor tweaks to the stadium.... 1 added row at the front and a slightly less steep rake to the bottom tier would probably equate to 1,000 seats. Then another 1 thousand seats by reducing leg room a little bit and adding another extra row, another thousand or so seats by making the drop at each of the top corners slightly less pronounced and then some more by extending the back of the single tier stand by a few rows and either keeping the same rake and busting out of the back of the stadium a little at the top or making a little steeper and raising the level of the roof slightly at that end of the stadium .... All relatively minor amendments, not really impacting costs but increasing capacity/revenue.

Personally I think it makes sense for THFC to get everything they can out of the stadium while they have the council and mayor over a barrel.

Very few of our old stadiums would pass planning laws. Modern stadiums look alike because they are not bespoke but use standard modular parts. The rake, depth of seating, seat size are all bought off the peg. It also means spare parts are easier to come by. old stadiums have difficulty in replacing broken seats. its not new as how many Archibald Leach stand were there.

Arsenal fans want the club to dig down to create extra seats and move the fans closer to the pitch, but I think ground conditions are against them.

Someone has posted a new picture of the area around the retained buildings on the Glory Glory forum. I can't seem to access it myself but if anyone else can (EJG? JimB?) and can post on here, that would be great.

You mean this one?

http://i44.tinypic.com/8yx9ux.jpg

This one?

http://i39.tinypic.com/11h4ebk.jpg

Or this one?

http://www.glory-glory.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=216&d=1329229164

Thanks jimB. Might be your third one but I can't see that on my iPad either, i'll have a look at work tomorrow. It's the one on page 24 from KingTuT which apparently shows the retained buildings.

These renders are interesting though, other than the obvious change (missing buildings) the podium seems to stretch further along the side of the flats giving more shop front to the spurs shop and less glass frontage than the current render.

The only thing about about building it at current planned 56 and not.the extra 4 or im some sources 10 k seats is once you build it its very hard to increase capacity.

In a nutshell.

In response to gunnerjacket's question, once the stadium is built, anything less than a massive increase in capacity will simply not be cost effective. So if changes and a capacity increase are to be implemented, then now is time to implement them - when all it will cost is a few sheets of paper, a few hundred man hours at the architect's or engineer's office and a bit of electricity for the computers.

As to a redesign causing delays, it seems that we're still some way off securing funding. And the idea is to get the supermarket underway first anyway. So there is no time pressure at present.

http://i39.tinypic.com/11h4ebk.jpg

Kop stand been shelved, or have they just used an outdated image of the stadium for that render?

I'm pretty sure the single tier stand is supposed to be at the end with the flats, which obviously you can't see in that pic because of the roof.

I hope you're right about the 4k Jim (and I'm not saying I'm expecting the council to object to the increase, only e.g. the police or TFL).

But overall yes, Levy has got a much better deal out of everyone over the past few weeks and months than what was on the table in 2010, and he should be applauded for rattling a few cages to get it.

TfL will do whatever Boris wants them to do, I would have thought. And Boris is fully behind the NDP and has most likely already been briefed about the proposed capacity increase.

You're right that the police might want something to say on the matter. But, as last summer's riots so vividly proved, they too have a vested interest in the regeneration of Tottenham. So I'd expect them to be broadly supportive of whatever makes the project viable.

I'm pretty sure the single tier stand is supposed to be at the end with the flats, which obviously you can't see in that pic because of the roof.

Correctamundo.

Arsenal fans want the club to dig down to create extra seats and move the fans closer to the pitch, but I think ground conditions are against them.

I would have thought that digging down would be rather problematic on the basis that modern stadia already have a lot going on beneath ground level anyway - car parking, maintenance areas, pitch heating etc.

One further point re the value of adding a further 4K seats:

The new FFP rules have been finalised and implemented since Spurs first decided upon the new stadium's capacity. More than ever, clubs now need to maximize all revenue streams in order to become or remain competitive.

I think I posted this a page or so back but when do we think Levy will reveal his hand re the stadium capacity...at the next council meeting?

The final item on the agenda for the meeting on the Haringey web site was "Date of next meeting: Special Planning Sub Committee – Monday, 20th February at 7pm," so I assume that's the next Spurs related meeting rather than the next meeting in general.
Looking at the Council Website this meeting on Monday 20th is the next planning commitee meeting. I've looked at the minutes and it is nothing to do with spurs or the surrounding area. Just in case anyone was planning on spending the evening watching this online again, unless you really enjoyed the last one (regardless of the subject), I wouldn't bother.

when do we think Levy will reveal his hand re the stadium capacity...at the next council meeting?

I guess the ball is now in the club's court as to whether to submit a new application or to stick with the current consented scheme. Most people seem to think it will be the former but when this happens is anyones guess. If they do then I am sure this would be the last and would confirm the capacity the club really want to go with.

I don't think we will see anything happening on the station walkway for a long time. If they do have to evict people from their homes, I doubt this would happen until the stadium is near completion.

TfL will do whatever Boris wants them to do, I would have thought. And Boris is fully behind the NDP and has most likely already been briefed about the proposed capacity increase.

You're right that the police might want something to say on the matter. But, as last summer's riots so vividly proved, they too have a vested interest in the regeneration of Tottenham. So I'd expect them to be broadly supportive of whatever makes the project viable.

I don't think for a minute that that TFL and the police are going to try to veto the increased capacity. Or even that they are not going to be broadly supportive.

But I don't think it is beyond the realms of possibility that they will ask for costs towards increased infrastructure and policing due to the larger crowds.

That means more negotiation - how much needs to be paid, who pays it etc. This will take time, and the relevant bodies will need to be consulted. A new travel plan will need to be produced.

But I'm sure that these negotiations have already started behind the scenes. Maybe the council will just pay any infrastructure costs, like before.

I would have thought that digging down would be rather problematic on the basis that modern stadia already have a lot going on beneath ground level anyway - car parking, maintenance areas, pitch heating etc.

Thats what they did at Manchester City Etiard but that was allowed for in the original design.

Looking at the Council Website this meeting on Monday 20th is the next planning commitee meeting. I've looked at the minutes and it is nothing to do with spurs or the surrounding area. Just in case anyone was planning on spending the evening watching this online again, unless you really enjoyed the last one (regardless of the subject), I wouldn't bother.
Cheers for the info. Although, what am I'm going to do with my Monday night that would be as exciting as another planning meeting???????

So, are we expecting the new revised capacity for the stadium to be revealed at the next meeting?

We will officially know about the increased capacity when the planning application is submitted (although it may be leaked in the press beforehand). No one knows when that will be, but I would think Spurs will want to submit it asap to keep the momentum rolling.

The planning meeting to approve it will not be for several weeks after that. The last round of amendments were formally submitted on 22 December and the planning committe met to approve it on 13 February. So I would expect a similar gap this time.

We will officially know about the increased capacity when the planning application is submitted (although it may be leaked in the press beforehand). No one knows when that will be, but I would think Spurs will want to submit it asap to keep the momentum rolling.

The planning meeting to approve it will not be for several weeks after that. The last round of amendments were formally submitted on 22 December and the planning committe met to approve it on 13 February. So I would expect a similar gap this time.

I thought I read somewhere that they kept the stadium/podium part separate as they are only non-material changes and don't need to go through the full planning process. If this is the case then this part could take less time.

I'm not sure what the limit on materiality is to make it non-material!

I thought I read somewhere that they kept the stadium/podium part separate as they are only non-material changes and don't need to go through the full planning process. If this is the case then this part could take less time.

I'm not sure what the limit on materiality is to make it non-material!
I think the document said that it was a "consequential" change.... whatever that means?!?

My thoughts are that the change must be of significance in terms of capacity otherwise it wouldn't be worth going back to planning for.

Thanks for the replies guys!

Personally, I'll be happy with just 1 seat more than the Emirates...60,356 please Mr Levy!

:lol:

congratulations spurs :)

FINALLY!

welcome in the club of new stadiums :cheers:

I welcome you next season in CL in Lille new stadium :lol:

I think the document said that it was a "consequential" change.... whatever that means?!?

My thoughts are that the change must be of significance in terms of capacity otherwise it wouldn't be worth going back to planning for.

There are 2 things that will be material enough to go back to planning: the capacity and the removal of the listed buildings.

After all the negotiation over the travel plan last time I don't think they could just add 4k (or possibly 9k?) without having to go back for approval.

Interesting to see if English Heritage will be overruled.

There are 2 things that will be material enough to go back to planning: the capacity and the removal of the listed buildings.

After all the negotiation over the travel plan last time I don't think they could just add 4k (or possibly 9k?) without having to go back for approval.

Interesting to see if English Heritage will be overruled.

Do you really think they will increase it by 9k? I would love it to be 65k but I personally think it'll only be a minor increase, say 2k, back to the original 58k. There might be a few disappointed fans around if that is the case, especially after all the speculation.

I'm still not convinced they are going to remove the listed buildings but some people's conviction about it elsewhere online and that render above do make a compelling case that they are going to apply for removal. Still not sure though.

I know this picture has been around for a long time and is on the official site but is it me or does the stadium look a lot closer to the road than in the aerial renders?
http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/media/images/non-decorative/the-stadium/non-crunch/web/stadium_on_high_road_new.jpg

I might be reading more into it but maybe this could suggest they would actually increase the size of the stadiums footprint in order to increase capacity?!?!? Speculation of course!!

I might be reading more into it but maybe this could suggest they would actually increase the size of the stadiums footprint in order to increase capacity?!?!? Speculation of course!!

Is that not a view of the stadium from the East?... i.e. with the stadium sitting very close to Worcester Avenue (which is closed to traffic on match days anyway).

Is that not a view of the stadium from the East?... i.e. with the stadium sitting very close to Worcester Avenue (which is closed to traffic on match days anyway).

Ahh you might be right. I thought it said 'West Entrance' in gold. I might be wrong it isn't clear.

Is the footprint fixed then or could it be enlarged? Slightly closer to the high road and the southern development? I know the away team coaches have to drop off on the west side of the ground but would it be unfeasible for the stadium to go over the coach entrance?

Who knows, I guess we just have to wait!!!

Do you really think they will increase it by 9k? I would love it to be 65k but I personally think it'll only be a minor increase, say 2k, back to the original 58k. There might be a few disappointed fans around if that is the case, especially after all the speculation.

I'm still not convinced they are going to remove the listed buildings but some people's conviction about it elsewhere online and that render above do make a compelling case that they are going to apply for removal. Still not sure though.

No idea re the new capacity. It might just be a rumour for all we know - we might just stick with 56k.

I remember that the original plans in 2009 were for around 58k but TFL (and the council) said that the "travel plan" was flawed and the infrastructure couldn't cope, so when the revised application was submitted in mid-2010 it had to go down to 56k (and even then it was only passed with £17m of s.106 "mitigation", which will now be funded by the council).

So, having agreed a specific capacity of 56k, I doubt that Spurs could simply go ahead now with 60k plus without further consultation.

Personally I hope its around 62-63k. I'd hate to do 60,500 purely to make it bigger than Arsenal's - that would seem petty and would result in derision from other fans.

I don't really care either way about the listed buildings, but I do think they look out of place, and I'd hate to think they could restrict the capacity.

That surely can't be a depiction of Tottenham High Road.

Is that not a view of the stadium from the East?... i.e. with the stadium sitting very close to Worcester Avenue (which is closed to traffic on match days anyway).

Nope. It's the High Road, from the northwest, looking southeast.

Look closely and you'll see, beyond the tree, the Red House and the previous design for that long, curved, 200 home, residential building.

So this is an old render - which means, in response to Loughton's original question, that the closer proximity of the stadium to the High Road is unlikely to be as a result of the new propsed capacity.

Loughton's right that there is an inconsistency between this render and the aerial. But it's probably just a mistake on the part of whoever produced the render.

I think the document said that it was a "consequential" change.... whatever that means?!?

My thoughts are that the change must be of significance in terms of capacity otherwise it wouldn't be worth going back to planning for.

Consequential as in "material" and as opposed to "inconsequential", I would have thought.

Dont think we should make it like one seat bigger just to get one up on arsenal tbh it doesnt really matter i would prefer 60-65k but a stadium needs to be intimatdating which i think the club has tried to do close stands to pitch, kop end etc and a bigger stadium should increase revenue streams which even if it stays 56k it should at least double our income especially the improved corpirate facilities. I think capacity will increase to how much anyone knows

Too big a change to go +60k. I'd be pretty shocked (and obviously chuffed) if they did. Much more likely to see the original 58k, but quite how they'll manage it without losing the ' kop' I'm not sure.
I suppose they could just add three or four rows to the back of the upper tier which would result in roughly that number. They'd probably need to enlarge the foot print by around 2.5-3m (in each direction)to do this unless they could just exaggerate any overhang without compromising the overall profile. Or maybe they've seen my plan to insert a mini tier above the kop!
I think they are right to question any transport plan as it is already a bit of a struggle with 36k so any substantial step up from 56k would be a serious strain on the system.

I love the concept of this stadium, it is gonna be amazing.

I think they are right to question any transport plan as it is already a bit of a struggle with 36k so any substantial step up from 56k would be a serious strain on the system.

Surely if Boris gets his way with London overground coming to tottenham by 2014, with 40% of additional trains. This would sort the travel plans for any size stadium we want.

Surely if Boris gets his way with London overground coming to tottenham by 2014, with 40% of additional trains. This would sort the travel plans for any size stadium we want.

Pretty much this. The only problem in the way of a larger capacity would be physically fitting the required footprint on the site.

Possibly an (unlikely) objection by the police on the grounds of safety.

Too big a change to go +60k. I'd be pretty shocked (and obviously chuffed) if they did. Much more likely to see the original 58k, but quite how they'll manage it without losing the ' kop' I'm not sure.
I suppose they could just add three or four rows to the back of the upper tier which would result in roughly that number. They'd probably need to enlarge the foot print by around 2.5-3m (in each direction)to do this unless they could just exaggerate any overhang without compromising the overall profile. Or maybe they've seen my plan to insert a mini tier above the kop!
I think they are right to question any transport plan as it is already a bit of a struggle with 36k so any substantial step up from 56k would be a serious strain on the system.

I don't think that they can enlarge the stadium footprint. It's already tight to Worcester Avenue, the supermarket and the new housing (if they're to leave any space for the public "square"). There's a bit more room along the High Road but, again, they probably have to allow for more room on that side.

But I don't believe that it would be necessary to enlarge the footprint in order to increase capacity by 5K or so. Sorry to be repetitive:

1. Move the stands a couple of rows closer to the pitch.
2. Create an extra couple of rows by marginally reducing the leg room.
3. Tweak the roof design so that there is a less pronounced dip in each corner.
4. As you say, add more rows (possibly in a second tier) to the current single tier end.

I love the concept of this stadium, it is gonna be amazing.

As a concept, three quarters of it is from a tried and trusted template.

But the single tier end, even if a bit clunky, does give it a distinct identity - a quality sadly lacking in many modern stadia.

The police and TfL will have been consulted during the design changes. THFC won't be going into planning meetings cold.

For those who remember the Olympic fiasco:

http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16170865

The guy who made the "anonymous complaint" (which everyone thought was Levy) has finally spoken out. He is the one who originally designed the blueprint for the stadium.

He is adding his weight to others who say the government have completely cocked it up.

For those who remember the Olympic fiasco:

http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16170865

The guy who made the "anonymous complaint" (which everyone thought was Levy) has finally spoken out. He is the one who originally designed the blueprint for the stadium.

He is adding his weight to others who say the government have completely cocked it up.

And he agrees with what Spurs were trying to do with regards to having a football only stadium with Athletics elsewhere.

At the time I could see where both arguements were coming from and was undecided about whether or not it was best for the club. Regardless of whether you wanted the move to stratford or not you must all agree that we are now much better off away from it.

The current Government and future governments for years to come would be all over that place, wanting to know what was going on. I personally think it's best to deal with them only when you have too, not on a regular basis!

And he agrees with what Spurs were trying to do with regards to having a football only stadium with Athletics elsewhere.

At the time I could see where both arguements were coming from and was undecided about whether or not it was best for the club. Regardless of whether you wanted the move to stratford or not you must all agree that we are now much better off away from it.
The current Government and future governments for years to come would be all over that place, wanting to know what was going on. I personally think it's best to deal with them only when you have too, not on a regular basis!

Yes. I could have lived with the change of location but I couldn't have lived with the government - or Sebastian Coe - being our landlords.

We're not the only ones desperate to see this thing started then!

http://www.enfieldindependent.co.uk/news/localnews/9535578.Tottenham_firms__desperate__to_see_Spurs_stadium_work_begin/

It's good to hear cos most building projects of this size have objections from noisey neighbours. When have you ever heard anyone say they want a construction site next door!?!? :)

On westhamonline.net they are organising a petition which they want to send to Brussels, complaining we are getting state aid.

Who is more pathetic - them or the Goons?

On westhamonline.net they are organising a petition which they want to send to Brussels, complaining we are getting state aid.

Who is more pathetic - them or the Goons?

The difference is there is no open competition for the right to play at White Hart Lane. WE OWN THE LAND!! :bash:

They are such retards!!

Not only that but none of this money is actually going to Tottenham Hotspur anyway. It's going to improving the infrastructure of the local area.

Obviously we will benefit from that but if that's state aid then any time the local authorities do ANY work to improve an area where a football club is situated, that club must be receiving state aid too! Idiots.

This money should be going in (and due to the riots, a lot of it would be going in) whether THFC were in the area or not.

As to which of the two are more pathetic, it's hard to decide as it's one hell of a competition they have going on between them.

For those who remember the Olympic fiasco:

http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16170865

The guy who made the "anonymous complaint" (which everyone thought was Levy) has finally spoken out. He is the one who originally designed the blueprint for the stadium.

He is adding his weight to others who say the government have completely cocked it up.

Ha!

Makes mugs of all those West Ham fans who bitched and moaned about the "fact" that it was undoubtedly Spurs who had made the complaint.

On westhamonline.net they are organising a petition which they want to send to Brussels, complaining we are getting state aid.

Who is more pathetic - them or the Goons?

Hahaha!

Bunch of dimwits.

Yeah.....I bet the EU are going to intervene because a local council and a city authority are investing a small amount in local transport infrastructure and job creation schemes in one of the poorest areas of the UK, with one of the highest rates of unemployment, and which also happens to have been the location of a major, destructive riot.

The EU hate it when local authorities do that sort of thing.......no, really, they do.

Duh!

Ha!

Makes mugs of all those West Ham fans who bitched and moaned about the "fact" that it was undoubtedly Spurs who had made the complaint.

Yeah - although I must admit I thought it was Levy myself but was afraid to say so!

Not seen this before:-

http://www.kssgroup.com/images/projects-images/Tottenham_Hotspur_Stadium/Tottenham_Hotspur_Stadium_05.jpg

Hahaha!

Bunch of dimwits.

Yeah.....I bet the EU are going to intervene because a local council and a city authority are investing a small amount in local transport infrastructure and job creation schemes in one of the poorest areas of the UK, with one of the highest rates of unemployment, and which also happens to have been the location of a major, destructive riot.

The EU hate it when local authorities do that sort of thing.......no, really, they do.

Duh!

Yeah, dimwits. Except no-one is taking a petition seriously, and no-one really cares too much about Spurs reneging on the agreement to help pay for essential services as part of the deal that was originally agreed between them and the council to provide spurs with the planning permission. Now that Spurs are staying in Haringay no-one really cares that much. Instead they are far more interested in staying at upton park unless the offer is significantly improved - including state funding for retractable seating and at least a slice of stadium commercial sponsorship rights.

Dimwits indeed.

Yeah, dimwits. Except no-one is taking a petition seriously, and no-one really cares too much about Spurs reneging on the agreement to help pay for essential services as part of the deal that was originally agreed between them and the council to provide spurs with the planning permission. Now that Spurs are staying in Haringay no-one really cares that much. Instead they are far more interested in staying at upton park unless the offer is significantly improved - including state funding for retractable seating and at least a slice of stadium commercial sponsorship rights.

Dimwits indeed.

Essential services? What are you talking about?

The money that will now come from Boris and Haringey will be spent on improvement works to White Hart Lane and Northumberland Park stations; tarting up the High Road; and job creation schemes. All of these things should be paid for by public money anyway. In fact, with regard to the long neglected area of north Tottenham, they should have been paid for many years ago.

Spurs haven't "reneged" on anything. They have simply come to a new agreement with Haringey (which received unanimous backing at the recent council meeting). It is an agreement which was made necessary by the fact the development simply wouldn't have gone ahead unless it became more affordable.

And, unlike you, the people at Haringey (and Boris) understand perfectly well that the £400 million that Spurs propose to invest in the area is a once in a lifetime opportunity. The NDP is the only hope the area has for regeneration. If relieving Spurs of the sole burden of paying for infrastructure upgrades (that government - local and national - has failed to provide for decades) makes the NDP viable, then that £27 million of public money will, over the years, be repaid tenfold.

P.S. Perhaps you're also referring to the fact that, under the new agreement, Spurs will no longer have to provide a quota of affordable housing? If so, you ought to know that agreements such as this are now quite common. And, in Tottenham, it makes complete sense. Because there is a surfeit of social housing in the area and a lack of private housing.

From The Mirror:

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Tottenham-close-to-450m-takeover-by-US-tycoon-Philip-Anschutz-according-to-report-article866417.html

America's 34th richest man to buy Spurs (report)

Tottenham are close to being sold in a £450million takeover, according to a report.

The story says Philip Anschutz, owner of American entertainment giants AEG and the 34th richest man in the USA with a £4.4 billion fortune, has been in talks with Spurs' current majority owner, Joe Lewis, for weeks.

A deal is not far away, continues the report, which claims Anschutz - who already owns David Beckham's Major League soccer side LA Galaxy - would keep current Spurs chairman Daniel Levy in place to run the club.

AEG owns London's O2 Arena and the MEN Arena in Manchester.


And from the Express:

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/302685/AEG-in-talks-for-Spurs

AEG IN TALKS FOR SPURS

AMERICAN entertainment giants AEG are moving closer to a £450 million takeover Tottenham.

AEG owner Philip Anschutz, the 34th richest man in the USA with a personal wealth of more than £4.4 billion, has been in talks with Spurs’ Bahamas-based owner Joe Lewis for weeks.

The pair are close to concluding a deal and Anschutz wants to keep current chairman Daniel Levy in place at White Hart Lane as his man on the ground at the north London club.

The agreement would inject new funds into Tottenham’s coffers and make it harder still for bitter rivals Arsenal to compete for the Champions League places, with Chelsea and the Manchester clubs blocking their path. Spurs formed close links with the AEG group last year as they put together a bid to buy the Olympic Stadium as a new home.

But now Anschutz, a close friend of Lewis, is interested in buying the club itself.

Spurs delisted from the Stock Exchange in January in a move Levy declared at the time was necessary to secure funding. And last September they were granted planning permission for a new 56,000-seat ground at Northumberland Park.

Lewis, 75, who owns about 30 per cent of Spurs through his company ENIC, of which Levy is also chairman, has been keen to loosen his ties with the club for some time and at last it looks as if the right buyer may have come along.

The reclusive Anschutz has a close interest in football, having been a major investor in the early days of Major League Soccer in the USA. Through his Anschutz Entertainment Group he, at one point, owned the Colorado Rapids, Chicago Fire and the San Jose Earthquakes.

Anschutz currently owns LA Galaxy and played a key role in taking David Beckham to the club in 2007, as well as a majority stake in Houston Dynamo, plus several basketball and ice hockey clubs.

AEG still own the O2 Arena in London and Manchester’s MEN Arena, as well as other major sporting venues.



No quotes, even from an unidentified source. And the fact that two papers are reporting this story isn't necessarily significant - they could just be following each other.

But interesting, nevertheless. For those who don't already know, AEG were Spurs' proposed partner in the Olympic stadium bid.

Wow interesting. At least thats an american owner that knows football from before and not some bloodsucking Glazer type, been involved with MLS from the start i think. I can see why he jumps in now, Tottenham is a club with a lot of potential.

This maybe a silly comment but.surely if you sold the club in 5 years time when the new stadium is more than likely.completed you would get more than 450 million. Plus say if spurs go onto be regular top 4, trophy contenders even title conterders the value of thfc will surely more right? also with the fair play rules surely having rich owners doesmt matter anymore apart from perhaps more wages but its not like we got go out and spunk 300 mil on messi or am i misunderstand the ffp rules

^^I was thinking the same thing. Spurs will be worth much more in a few years with the stadium done. But they might need an owner with deeper pockets to get it financed.

I'm a spurs fan living in Los Angeles. I don't know about you guys but these are the pockets the Spurs need not only to make things happen but to stay in the top 4-6 teams in the EPL.

I can't say enough about Phil and his organization. They are not afraid to spend the cash to make improvements. Heck this guy SINGLE HANDEDLY built the Staples Center in a town were it is notorious for its super regulatory environment AND has made it one of the top entertainment destinations in the country.
IMO, this is nothing but good news to Spurs fans. I know English fans are not too high on american owners but outside of the last liverpool owners, the americans like Stan Kroenke over at Arsenal (Boooo), the Fenway group with Henry and Werner, these guys are avid sports fans as well. They want to be tied to success and AEG is no different.

Among other things, AEG along with Lamar Hunt, a Pro football pioneer and avid soccer fan, funded the construction of the majority of the stadiums in the MLS. I'm very excited about this news and if they do become owners, the stadium will be built rather sooner than later...

Go Spurs Go!!

I'm a spurs fan living in Los Angeles. I don't know about you guys but these are the pockets the Spurs need not only to make things happen but to stay in the top 4-6 teams in the EPL.

I can't say enough about Phil and his organization. They are not afraid to spend the cash to make improvements. Heck this guy SINGLE HANDEDLY built the Staples Center in a town were it is notorious for its super regulatory environment AND has made it one of the top entertainment destinations in the country.
IMO, this is nothing but good news to Spurs fans. I know English fans are not too high on american owners but outside of the last liverpool owners, the americans like Stan Kroenke over at Arsenal (Boooo), the Fenway group with Henry and Werner, these guys are avid sports fans as well. They want to be tied to success and AEG is no different.

Among other things, AEG along with Lamar Hunt, a Pro football pioneer and avid soccer fan, funded the construction of the majority of the stadiums in the MLS. I'm very excited about this news and if they do become owners, the stadium will be built rather sooner than later...

Go Spurs Go!!

This....

Like I said on another board the current American ownership English football fans have been exposed to aren't the "A-team" of American owners, Uncle Phil is a different story. He pretty much is the father of the MLS and with the Galaxy he's committed to putting the best product on the field possible. When it looked like Beckham might leave he had players like Ronaldinho on his shortlist, he's always looking to maintain a level of excellence, rules permitting. If we're taking on foreign ownership then we couldn't do much better then Phil and if he's retaining Levy it really couldn't get any better.

I like Lewis but to be honest he's never really seriously backed the club. Pretty much all we've earned has come about from revenue generated by the club, which is fine. If Phil was the boss though I can see us spending a bit more relative to our turnover. Not like City or Chelsea but enough to give players like Modric, Ade, Bale, etc competitive Top 4 contracts. While from Lewis's POV he wouldn't see that investment as making business sense, Phil would take the hit. I think we'd have a better shot of maintaining our squad and adding to it until the stadium is completed and we can really mix it up.

It's worth repeating that, at the moment, this is only an unsubstantiated rumour.

There may be nothing in it at all.

Or it may be that there are talks between Spurs and AEG but that they are purely about the new stadium. AEG could just be keen to build on the relationship they have with Spurs since the Olympic stadium bid and propose to use the new stadium as a venue for other events.

Nevertheless, it's good to hear that Anschutz has a good track record in sports. I don't ask that a new owner necessarily ploughs a lot of their own money into the club - though help with the stadium financing would obviously be welcome - so long as they don't do a Hicks / Gillette / Glazer.

Keeping Levy on as chairman, if he's happy to do that, would be a masterstroke.

I heard this rumour a few weeks ago as well. My gut says there's something in it.

As Harry1990 said, the new FFP rules (in theory, let's see how well UEFA enforce them) should stop owners ploughing their own personal wealth into a club to fund extravagant wages and transfer fees anyway, so a new owner wouldn't help us in that regard. I wouldn't want our club to be run in that way anyway, even if it does make it harder to stay near the top of the league.

Capital investments like stadium projects aren't taken into account in the FFP rules though, so a rich new owner could certainly help in that regard. Even if not with their own personal wealth, this Anschutz bloke sounds like someone who would have serious connections when it comes to helping us get better deals with external financing, naming rights, etc..

Whatever happens (and we're bound to be sold at some point) I do hope Levy stays on as chairman. He's made mistakes along the way, but on the whole I think the way he runs the club is the right way to go.

Still, as JimB said, could all be a nothing story anyway. Even if you see a story in every single newspaper, they probably all just repackaged it from the exact same Press Association story, added a few words of their own, then slapped an "exclusive" label on it :) The majority of what you see in the papers isn't original reporting.

This is a good article regarding AEG. Give a little bit more info on what they could bring to the table.

http://www.cartilagefreecaptain.com/2012/2/17/2804065/tottenham-hotspur-takeover-sale-aeg-phillip-anchutz

wow!

totteham will retrurn on its glory days :)

Intersteing project to follow.

how is the level of debts. that's the weak of brits clubs:

A lot of cash generated but endebtment still a fear(ManU,chelsea,liverpool,rangers...) :(

The rumours about AEG, which have been around for a while, are certainly gathering pace.

I finally got round to watching the planning meeting last night and saw that we were applying to increase the number of non-matchday events from 6 per annum to 12. That would certainly fit in with AEG’s modus operandi (concerts etc).

I can certainly see AEG being interested in coming in as an equity partner for the NDP, injecting cash now to take a role in running the stadium, and sharing in the profits the stadium eventually makes. Whether that means THFC itself is being sold to them is another matter though. Maybe the journos have got wind that there are talks with AEG but are jumping to the wrong conclusion.

Certainly, you would expect Levy to remain in place. The NDP is his baby and it would be madness for him to depart the scene on the eve of construction. No incoming party will have the expertise or the background knowledge to take it forward like he can.

It is possible that a buyer (like AEG) could take over THFC and install Levy as chairman/CEO but I just can’t see that happening. He is too entrenched with ENIC. Anyway, if ENIC are going to sell up, it would make more sense to do so after the stadium is up and running. They would almost certainly get a better price then.

wow!

totteham will retrurn on its glory days :)

Intersteing project to follow.

how is the level of debts. that's the weak of brits clubs:

A lot of cash generated but endebtment still a fear(ManU,chelsea,liverpool,rangers...) :(

Spurs has about £60 million debt, but only because the club has invested heavily in capital assets over the past few years - buying all the property required for the NDP and building the new £30-40 million training ground.

As to the other clubs you mention, the only one that is obviously a major concern is Rangers. They are well and truly in the shit.

Chelsea have debt in theory. But, in practice, it can be wiped out in a trice by Abramovich converting the debt into equity.

Man Utd's debt is not of their own making. It is simply as a result of their having bought by leveraged buyout. In other words, the Glazers piled their own family debt on the club and are leeching some £60 million per annum from the club to pay off their interest charges.

As to Liverpool, I was under the impression that, since Hicks and Gillette (who, like the Glazers at Utd, had piled their own debt on Liverpool) were forced to sell to the Fenway Sports Group, the club has little or no debt.

The rumours about AEG, which have been around for a while, are certainly gathering pace.

I finally got round to watching the planning meeting last night and saw that we were applying to increase the number of non-matchday events from 6 per annum to 12. That would certainly fit in with AEG’s modus operandi (concerts etc).

I can certainly see AEG being interested in coming in as an equity partner for the NDP, injecting cash now to take a role in running the stadium, and sharing in the profits the stadium eventually makes. Whether that means THFC itself is being sold to them is another matter though. Maybe the journos have got wind that there are talks with AEG but are jumping to the wrong conclusion.

Certainly, you would expect Levy to remain in place. The NDP is his baby and it would be madness for him to depart the scene on the eve of construction. No incoming party will have the expertise or the background knowledge to take it forward like he can.

It is possible that a buyer (like AEG) could take over THFC and install Levy as chairman/CEO but I just can’t see that happening. He is too entrenched with ENIC. Anyway, if ENIC are going to sell up, it would make more sense to do so after the stadium is up and running. They would almost certainly get a better price then.

Could it not be possible for AEG to buy ENIC from Joe Lewis' Tavistock Group?

This would mean Levy could continue his role as Chairman at Spurs without losing his own interest in ENIC.

Could it not be possible for AEG to but ENIC from Joe Lewis' Tavistock Group?

This would mean Levy could continue his role as Chairman at Spurs without losing his own interest in ENIC.

Yes its possible, but then AEG would end up controlling ENIC, rather than Lewis or Levy. So its the same result.

Although the long term plan is for ENIC to sell THFC, I don't get the impression that they want to do it now, before the stadium is built. I don't think it would be right for them personally or for the football club.

What they need in the short term is to raise cash, to get the stadium built, and there are other ways to do that than to sell their controlling interest in ENIC or THFC.

Just watching SSN and they read out a statement from AEG denying they have any interest at all in buying Spurs, but they did say they have a close working relationship with us and will continue to do so. Reckon they may end up doing something with us re the stadium but it seems like buying the whole club isn't on the radar.

AEG have confirmed they are NOT interested in buying Tottenham Hotspur.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/soccer/wires/02/17/2080.ap.soc.tottenham.aeg.0126/index.html

But they do want to keep a good relationship with Spurs "going forward". So it sounds like they are hoping to play some part in the future of the new stadium but not actually buying the football club.

Just watching SSN and they read out a statement from AEG denying they have any interest at all in buying Spurs, but they did say they have a close working relationship with us and will continue to do so. Reckon they may end up doing something with us re the stadium but it seems like buying the whole club isn't on the radar.

Beat me to it EJG.

Beat me to it EJG.
Which I'm very surprised by as it took a long time and a lot of effort to stop drooling over Natalie Sawyer long enough to post :lol:

It's worth repeating that, at the moment, this is only an unsubstantiated rumour.

There may be nothing in it at all.

Or it may be that there are talks between Spurs and AEG but that they are purely about the new stadium. AEG could just be keen to build on the relationship they have with Spurs since the Olympic stadium bid and propose to use the new stadium as a venue for other events.

Nevertheless, it's good to hear that Anschutz has a good track record in sports. I don't ask that a new owner necessarily ploughs a lot of their own money into the club - though help with the stadium financing would obviously be welcome - so long as they don't do a Hicks / Gillette / Glazer.

Keeping Levy on as chairman, if he's happy to do that, would be a masterstroke.

Though they said they are not buying the team but building a relationship, this is THE one relationship you really want to have!!.. Heck they might be negotiating with Spurs and saying "Hey if you let us run the stadium, then we will build it FOR YOU" AEG is more in the facilities management business than the sports franchise business. They are known to build arenas and stadiums and most of the time fully financing the projects themselves. They will make their money back from the management side of the deal.

One scenario might be they will buy the land and build the stadium if the Spurs agree to let them manage it. Which is also a good thing because AEG would bring more events and revenue to the stadium. These guys are top notch and any involvement with them should be viewed as a plus.

One last thing, they HAVE to keep Levy IF they did decide to eventually buy the team. That would be huge.

Though they said they are not buying the team but building a relationship, this is THE one relationship you really want to have!!.. Heck they might be negotiating with Spurs and saying "Hey if you let us run the stadium, then we will build it FOR YOU" AEG is more in the facilities management business than the sports franchise business. They are known to build arenas and stadiums and most of the time fully financing the projects themselves. They will make their money back from the management side of the deal.

One scenario might be they will buy the land and build the stadium if the Spurs agree to let them manage it. Which is also a good thing because AEG would bring more events and revenue to the stadium. These guys are top notch and any involvement with them should be viewed as a plus.

One last thing, they HAVE to keep Levy IF they did decide to eventually buy the team. That would be huge.

Pretty sure that Spurs wouldn't sell the land. They would want to continue to own their own stadium. But it's possible that, for a fee, they could farm out the management of non football events at the stadium to AEG.

The only problem with that, though, is that the area of Tottenham is not exactly the most salubrious in London and, even after the proposed infrastructure upgrades, it will still have inferior transport connections by comparison to other potential, big music venues in London - Wembley, Emirates, Olympic stadium - so it's questionable just how attractive a venue the new Spurs stadium would be for AEG.

But Spurs are applying for an increase in the number of non-football events in the stadium. There's got to be a reason for that hasn't there?

But Spurs are applying for an increase in the number of non-football events in the stadium. There's got to be a reason for that hasn't there?

Absolutely. I'm not ruling out the possibility of AEG managing non football events at the new WHL.

I'm just playing devil's advocate.

Interesting idea to commemorate the Spurs greats such as Chivers, Greaves, etc. with statues near the new stadium.

But how about epitaphs? We could do a Millwall and have this carved in stone:
ARSENE WENGER - SPURS LEGEND.

Dont think the players idea is as good as one statue of "Sir" Bill Nicholson, with maybe one of his quotes on. I always liked the one about we at spurs have aimed our sights high so even in failure there is an echo of sucess