Stratford supporters did WHL fans a favour
Trawling as one does the headline hit me, hadn't I just paraphrased the same line 'Build it and they might come'.
I knew what it was about so dived into an eloquent article over at DearMrLevy.com about the mistrust of some supporters and an argument why the stadium must be built, which of course it must.
Apart from the 'speculate to accumulate' remark which needs slight clarification for me, speculate to accumulate within our repayment means or blindly speculate to accumulate and destroy the club for 10 years if success didn't arrive, the piece generally supported my own views. Building it best for the club regardless of what ulterior motives and conspiracy people want to believe.
But it was one comments that interested me. A comment that the stadium is 'viable' after all suggests bizarrely that the financial climate doesn't change, that new sponsors are not forthcoming, that the threat of moving to Stratford didn't generate regeneration money or resolve the 106 condition issue (funding of surrounding infrastructure/projects).
Stratford was a pawn, a game designed to force Boris Johnson's hand, to show him Spurs were committed to moving out of the area if regeneration money was not forthcoming. Yes Levy would have moved out of the area, it made financial sense, but you can't simply make a threat and not show you are serious.
Without public money Spurs would eventually simply have found somewhere else to build the stadium and taken the club out the area, Boris couldn't have that but how far does he go in calling Daniel Levy's bluff. Big business playing games and our poor hearts being torn in the process.
Recent Articles:
History maker Burkinshaw appointed manager
Naughton - an undervalued resource
Tony Parks. Edinson Cavani, Marković, Zaha, Moreno, Pogba
Poch is no Pooch
Will Eriksen develop Modric skill?
Barcelona tell Vertonghen we might want you
In 2012 Tottenham reached agreement with London Mayor Boris Johnson for that further investment. Instead of forcing the club to regenerate the area, public funding would quite rightly now assist. Tottenham had been expected to spend £16m to improve transport and community infrastructure, now the public sector would pay for that, but more important than the figure was the commitment backed by money. It's easy to commit to something that doesn't cost you anything.
Did Tottenham win the battle, did the Mayor. It depends upon our initial aims rather than the public stated ones, which demand more than you know you are going to get. Daniel Levy delivered Tottenham's verdict.
The council had, it seems from the outside, been reluctant to financially assist. It would give all other help needed but again seem to want to try to force Tottenham to pay for the area regeneration, which they themselves had failed to do over numerous years.
Daniel Levy, argued that without the regeneration of the surrounding area land values would not increase and it would be difficult to attract investors to raise the £400m stadium cost. This was about more than money, but about getting the Government and the Mayor of London to commit to regenerating an area. Yes that would benefit the club but it would benefit the area as well.
Without the threat of Stratford this new proposed stadium would not be built so the suggest anyone who supported Stratford shouldn't be allowed in the new stadium overlooks that without those people supporting a move for financial reasons the club wouldn't be building a new stadium where we live.
We would have remained small town charlies with the financial gap widening or moved out the area. Indeed West Ham may have overtaken us in years to come.
Regenerating the borough was vital but why should Spurs fund virtually all of it. You don't regenerate piecemeal, you have an overall plan and progress in steps. With an overall plan you generate investment and with any overall plan you have to know what the initial contributors are contributing.
The highest unemployment rate in London is in Tottenham and 80% of those are in the Northumberland Park Ward, which contains our ground. It is one of the poorest parts of London.
Nobody, not the Government, not the council, not the Mayor of London were investing in the area, so it could never attract external investors. With commitment, and financial commitment from all sides, external finance is easier to attract. That produces confidence and the essential element, a potential increase in investment return.
Let us now hope there are no further delays, no chance of getting it ahead of schedule I suppose, I've never understood why it takes so long to build something.
But without the threat of Stratford we wouldn't even be building a stadium, those who supported it, did those who didn't, a favour.
I knew what it was about so dived into an eloquent article over at DearMrLevy.com about the mistrust of some supporters and an argument why the stadium must be built, which of course it must.
Apart from the 'speculate to accumulate' remark which needs slight clarification for me, speculate to accumulate within our repayment means or blindly speculate to accumulate and destroy the club for 10 years if success didn't arrive, the piece generally supported my own views. Building it best for the club regardless of what ulterior motives and conspiracy people want to believe.
But it was one comments that interested me. A comment that the stadium is 'viable' after all suggests bizarrely that the financial climate doesn't change, that new sponsors are not forthcoming, that the threat of moving to Stratford didn't generate regeneration money or resolve the 106 condition issue (funding of surrounding infrastructure/projects).
Stratford was a pawn, a game designed to force Boris Johnson's hand, to show him Spurs were committed to moving out of the area if regeneration money was not forthcoming. Yes Levy would have moved out of the area, it made financial sense, but you can't simply make a threat and not show you are serious.
Without public money Spurs would eventually simply have found somewhere else to build the stadium and taken the club out the area, Boris couldn't have that but how far does he go in calling Daniel Levy's bluff. Big business playing games and our poor hearts being torn in the process.
Recent Articles:
History maker Burkinshaw appointed manager
Naughton - an undervalued resource
Tony Parks. Edinson Cavani, Marković, Zaha, Moreno, Pogba
Poch is no Pooch
Will Eriksen develop Modric skill?
Barcelona tell Vertonghen we might want you
In 2012 Tottenham reached agreement with London Mayor Boris Johnson for that further investment. Instead of forcing the club to regenerate the area, public funding would quite rightly now assist. Tottenham had been expected to spend £16m to improve transport and community infrastructure, now the public sector would pay for that, but more important than the figure was the commitment backed by money. It's easy to commit to something that doesn't cost you anything.
Did Tottenham win the battle, did the Mayor. It depends upon our initial aims rather than the public stated ones, which demand more than you know you are going to get. Daniel Levy delivered Tottenham's verdict.
"As a major employer and business in the area we are delighted with this commitment from the Mayor and Haringey Council.
"We have long said we could only invest in the area if we could see our commitment supported by others and that there was a real need to maximise the regeneration benefits and lift the wider area.
"We therefore see this as a commitment from the public sector to the Tottenham area and one which strengthens our ability to deliver a new stadium scheme with the potential to kickstart the long-term regeneration of north Tottenham."
The council had, it seems from the outside, been reluctant to financially assist. It would give all other help needed but again seem to want to try to force Tottenham to pay for the area regeneration, which they themselves had failed to do over numerous years.
Daniel Levy, argued that without the regeneration of the surrounding area land values would not increase and it would be difficult to attract investors to raise the £400m stadium cost. This was about more than money, but about getting the Government and the Mayor of London to commit to regenerating an area. Yes that would benefit the club but it would benefit the area as well.
Without the threat of Stratford this new proposed stadium would not be built so the suggest anyone who supported Stratford shouldn't be allowed in the new stadium overlooks that without those people supporting a move for financial reasons the club wouldn't be building a new stadium where we live.
We would have remained small town charlies with the financial gap widening or moved out the area. Indeed West Ham may have overtaken us in years to come.
Regenerating the borough was vital but why should Spurs fund virtually all of it. You don't regenerate piecemeal, you have an overall plan and progress in steps. With an overall plan you generate investment and with any overall plan you have to know what the initial contributors are contributing.
The highest unemployment rate in London is in Tottenham and 80% of those are in the Northumberland Park Ward, which contains our ground. It is one of the poorest parts of London.
Nobody, not the Government, not the council, not the Mayor of London were investing in the area, so it could never attract external investors. With commitment, and financial commitment from all sides, external finance is easier to attract. That produces confidence and the essential element, a potential increase in investment return.
Let us now hope there are no further delays, no chance of getting it ahead of schedule I suppose, I've never understood why it takes so long to build something.
But without the threat of Stratford we wouldn't even be building a stadium, those who supported it, did those who didn't, a favour.
Post a Comment