Where now for Spurs ?

Where now for Spurs?

By Leon Mann


It is back to the drawing board for Tottenham Hotspur. West Ham have been selected as the preferred bidder to move into the Olympic Stadium in Stratford after London 2012, meaning Spurs will remain at White Hart Lane - for the time being at least.

The public relations battle between the two London football clubs ahead of Friday's announcement by the Olympic Park Legacy Company (OPLC) raised a number of interesting issues affecting both sets of fans.

Does football territory mean anything anymore? Is football officially now more about business than the heritage of a club? How important are local people to a football club?

The latter struck me at an entertaining Spurs news conference with manager Harry Redknapp three weeks ago. Amid stories of him being mugged in Madrid, transfer targets and the weekly Ledley King injury update, the Spurs boss told the press that local people in Tottenham do not support the team. He went on to say 1% of those in the local area come to matches - according to Harry the same was true at the Hammers.

Having been brought up in Haringey, trained at Spurs as a youngster and attended plenty of Tottenham games in my capacity as a journalist, I wondered how true this was.

I recounted this line from the press conference to Tottenham MP David Lammy, who warned: "We must be very, very gentle when we are talking about the poorest area in London with the highest unemployment and a club that has some of the highest ticket prices in the Premier League.

"Football has become a modern phenomenon. It's become a phenomenon that has priced a lot of people out of the game. But just because it's priced those people out of the game - and prevented them from being able to go and sit in the stands - in a constituency like mine, let us not get into a situation where we then whip the club away from the community and rush somewhere else for hospitality boxes and expensive naming rights."

Lammy believes Spurs would not be the club they are today without the local community.

"It is the quintessential north London club. It was begun by a bible teacher and some young lads from All Hallow's church 127 years ago. That counts for something," he added.

"Tottenham is a community where many immigrants have come. Spurs is a club built on the back of that. And, for all of those reasons, keeping Spurs in Tottenham is hugely important."

Tim Framp, spokesperson for We Are N17, a group of Spurs fans campaigning against the club moving away from White Hart Lane, saw Friday's announcement as, "the end of the first chapter in a slightly longer story."


He went on: "Just because a club is massive and has fans that are largely not from the local area I don't think that means you've got the excuse to start ignoring everything that makes the club what it is.

"It's hard to put it into the context of football clubs because they are businesses now. But where do you draw the line? As soon as you start taking that view you get into the issue of who makes up the majority of Manchester United fans. Is it 200 million Chinese people? So should United be going out to China and building a 200,000-seat stadium and playing half of their games there.

"So much of what makes football such a beautiful and romantic game is being eroded away."

Spurs chairman Daniel Levy had defended the club's ambition to move to Stratford by stating very clearly that staying in Tottenham - and following an original plan to develop White Hart Lane which would increase the capacity to 58,000 - is not financially viable.

Levy told BBC Sport earlier this week: "We are desperate to find a solution for a bigger stadium. We haven't actually said we'll move out of the borough. What we have said is that we will have to consider other options because the current plans on the new White Hart Lane are just not financially viable."

The members of We Are N17, some of whom held a private meeting with Levy in recent weeks to discuss the issue, do not accept the chairman's view.

"Two years ago we were told that it wouldn't even impact on our transfer budget let alone be financially viable. It is tough to marry up what we were told before and what we've been told now. Unless we can understand why the club can't be in Tottenham - that's where we want to be", Framp commented.


As part of the PR battle during the Olympic Stadium bid, Levy urged fans to "remove the emotion" when considering Spurs' bid to move east. He also spoke about having the support of 99% of his fans.

The snap shot of reactions on social networking site Twitter show supporters are generally in favour of the OPLC board's decision.


So where do Tottenham go from here? With a season-ticket waiting list of more than 35,000 fans, the club needs a solution.

Levy had said there was no plan B if a move to the Olympic Stadium failed, which would suggest the north Londoners have no option but to remain in the area. That would certainly please some of their fans.

But moving forward you wonder whether the club would consider following a move made by Everton in 2007.

The Merseysiders balloted 36,000 supporters on a proposed move from Goodison Park to a new ground in Kirkby. While the new stadium did not materialise, a similar approach by Spurs would keep fans happy as they would be fully consulted and play an integral part in their clubs future. But would Levy consider it?

Lammy is unequivocal in his vision. He wants to consign the proposed Stratford move to the past and work together with Spurs to keep the club in the N17 area. Planning permission was granted for development of their current stadium on 30 September 2010, and Lammy wants to return to that plan and work through any issues.

"The last few months has been a kind of a digression but I want to turn the page on that digression to where we were," Lammy continued.

"There are other super clubs in Manchester and Liverpool that have stayed in their area - often very poor - and still gone on to grow, and I think Spurs can go on to do the same thing."

Whether Levy, and the club, agree with Lammy's vision remains to be seen.

"Two years ago we were told that it wouldn't even impact on our transfer
budget let alone be financially viable. It is tough to marry up what we
were told before and what we've been told now. Unless we can understand
why the club can't be in Tottenham - that's where we want to be", Framp
commented.

That is what I have been banging on about. What has changed in two years that suddenly it's now not viable to rebuild where we are? Especially after the millions that have already been spent on laying the groundwork. Levy now says he is looking for investment to help with the NPD. Wasn't he always?

THE LEADER of Haringey Council has called on Spurs to urgently renew its commitment to Tottenham so joint work can begin to secure additional investment for a new White Hart Lane Stadium.

Councillor Claire Kober renewed the council’s pledge to do all it can to keep Tottenham Hotspurs in White Hart Lane after the club lost its bid for the Olympic Stadium last week.

The decision lifts the immediate threat of the club abandoning its home ground.

But Spurs has so far remained tight lipped about its future since club chairman Daniel Levy last month said redeveloping White Hart Lane was no longer “financially viable”.

Councillor Kober said: “I think the club needs, as a matter of urgency, to restate its commitment to Tottenham and staying in Tottenham. Once it’s made that commitment we can sit down together and work out how we move forwards.

“As part of that we can really work together to lever-in additional investment in the area. But none of this is possible without the club first committing to Tottenham and its future in Tottenham.”

Spurs won planning permission to build a world-class new 56,000-seat stadium in White Hart Lane last September as part of the £450million Northumberland Development Project, which also includes a supermarket, an 150-bed hotel, shops, restaurants and 200 flats.

But Councillor Kober treated claims the stadium scheme is no longer affordable with scepticism.

“This was a scheme that was viable 15 weeks ago and there’s been no information that I’ve received to say that’s compromised,” she said.

“I think that a club would not bring an application to planning committee if it was not viable.

“There are significant financial assessments undertaken before it reaches the committee. Developers simply don’t bring applications that don’t stack up financially.”

She now plans to lobby London Mayor Boris Johnson to secure Spurs future in Tottenham, and also believes public money may still be available - perhaps even from Europe - given the regeneration legacy the stadium promises.

“The club has always said that this is a scheme that has lacked any public subsidy and I understand that point,” she said. “Clearly it’s a scheme that’s also come about in a really torrid time for public sector finances.

“But there is work to be undertaken together looking at how we lever-in public sector investment in the medium term. The scheme is not due for completion until 2016, that’s certainly a timeframe where I think it is possible to secure funds.”

Pressure on Haringey Council’s ruling Labour administration has mounted since the Olympic Stadium decision last week.

Councillor Robert Gorrie, leader of the Liberal Democrat opposition, said it was “imperative” Labour secure Spurs’ future in Haringey or risk adding to a “catalogue of failed regeneration projects”.

But Councillor Kober said: “Rather than putting forward comments after the event, perhaps the Liberal Democrats would be better to join with the people of Haringey in encouraging Spurs to stay.

“There has been a real groundswell of support for Spurs staying in the borough. The people of Tottenham have been very patient and I think now is the time for the club to commit to White Hart Lane.”

http://www.hornseyjournal.co.uk

But Councillor Kober treated claims the stadium scheme is no longer affordable with scepticism.

“This was a scheme that was viable 15 weeks ago and there’s been no information that I’ve received to say that’s compromised,” she said.

“I think that a club would not bring an application to planning committee if it was not viable.( Especially not having invested £50 million + so far in it)

“There are significant financial assessments undertaken before it reaches the committee. Developers simply don’t bring applications that don’t stack up financially.”


You have put your finger on a very interesting point councillor - and the question that emerges from that point is Levy either a) a man who is so cunning that he has masterminded a web of strategies that appears to have left the entire project in limbo - but in reality has a masterstroke up his sleeve which he will whip out toute de suite ?

Or b) is Levy a semi competent chancer who has been out of his depth since the project got underway ?