We're damned if we do and damned if we don't according to this article.
The Battle for Statford
Posted on January 15, 2011
Tottenham Hotspur’s controversial bid for the Olympic Stadium
is a fascinating insight into how the worlds of football, business and
politics can collide. It raises the very pertinent questions about the
Olympic legacy as well as the conundrum of “What is modern football?”.
Seems as good a place as any to start this blog on then. Using a bit
of expert help, I hope to raise some issues that aren’t getting airtime
in the current media debate.
Athletics Legacy
On the Today Programme this week, Ed Warner was incredulous that
anyone would knock down a stadium that cost 500m of taxpayers money to
build
The questions I find myself asking are
1) How can Spurs pay just half that amount to build a similar capacity
stadium? It suggests a terrific waste of money on the governments part.
2) How in god’s name was £500m spent on a stadium with little or no
thought into its future legacy? The demolition of the Olympic Stadium
would not be a signal of a greedy premier league club defying the
Olympic legacy, but a scandalous lack of foresight from the
government.Surely Greece 04 provided plentiful examples of White
Elephant facilities becoming a useless drain on the public purse? Even a
child could see that a 60,000 seater stadium is far too large for the
irregular and poorly-attended UK athletics schedule. Why is this debate
happening with the Olympic Stadium half-built, instead of planning for a
sustainable and profitable future beforehand?
3)Why is this alternative Crystal Palace stadium being dismissed out
of hand? If the Olympic Legacy company are going to risk millions in
taxpayers money by choosing West Ham – the riskier financial option –
then they at least need to provide reasons why this alternative stadium
is inappropriate. The original plan when the Olympic Stadium was
constructed, was to reduce capacity to 25,000 after the Olympics
(http://www.cslondon.org/sustainable-games/venues/). Why exactly would a
similar capacity stadium in Crystal Palace be such an insult to UK
Athletics?
(4) Finally it seems to me that as a lobby group, Athletics has some
prominent individuals who can easily use their profile to attack the
Spurs bid. But what about ordinary tax payers who simply want the
monstrous costs of the Olympics repaid as much as possible? The West Ham
bid is risky and almost certainly less lucrative for the public purse
than seeing the combined clout of Spurs and AEG filling the stadium, as
well as bankrolling a more sustainable Athletics legacy out of their own
pocket. In this time of supposed austerity, I find it remarkable that
nobody is speaking up against the public paying tens – or even hundreds –
of millions to subsidise UK Athletics’ delusions of grandeur.
The Northumberland Park Project
Last year Tottenham Hostpur revealed its plan for Northumberland Park
– a 60,000 seat stadium on the same site. Spurs fans accuse their board
of betrayal by switching to the cheaper option at the Olympic site,
seemingly unaware of how remote and risky the Northumberland Park scheme
would really be. I asked a senior surveyor with a tack record of large
development projects for his opinion;
Since it was announced, there has been raised eyebrows in the
industry about how a company with an annual profit averaging £10
million, can afford a £450 million stadium. Their owner Jo Lewis doesn’t
have that kind of capital anymore, so it would be funded by a little
sponsorship and equity, plus a vast amount of debt secured against
future revenues from tickets and property development. In the present
climate, even the largest property developers are having trouble
securing credit, and are understandably squeamish about starting large
projects, yet you’re telling me this is the time for Spurs -a football
club – to try their hand? For these reasons, there has been a lingering
suspicion that Levy is getting these designs and plans into place for a
new equity-rich owner, so he can sell Tottenham as a ready-to-assemble
superclub.
Yet despite reaching the promised land of Champions League, no potential buyers have emerged. Worse still new problems emerged;
The Northumberland Project is a key regeneration project in a
deprived ward that has been repeatedly prioritised for development by
the government and the LDA. Spurs would have reasonably expected
Northumberland Park to be green-lighted with minimum fuss, and perhaps
even received Government support and CPO powers like neighbouring
Arsenal’s new stadium did. Instead, they faced ludicrous protests from
English Heritage and CABE insisting on “protecting“ the architectural
integrity of the High Road. Tottenham is fairly universally agreed to be
one of the most ugly areas of London, and it is starving for investment
– where on earth was the crusading David Lammy when these petty
concerns jeopardised the whole development? Instead Spurs had to go
through an expensive redesign and sacrifice a lot of the apartments that
would make the scheme affordable. Finally TfL delivered the knockout
blow by refusing to commit any funding to the Victoria Line Extension –
without which a 60,000 seater stadium simply cannot be supported. Just
like at Battersea Power Station , TfL are treating Section 106
agreements with developers like cash machines to cover infrastructure
improvements they should be making themselves. In my professional
opinion, it is this utter lack of Government support that has made the
Northumberland Park design unfeasible, and compelled Spurs to look
elsewhere.
By combining the bid for the Olympic site with equity-rich AEG, Spurs
would stand to save an estimated £200 million on the bid, which could
be used to keep their squad competitive throughout the move. It also
removes the difficult issue of rebuilding the stadium on site, which
would mean playing in half a stadium during construction. The debate
among Spurs fans doesn’t seem to have accounted for the fact that unless
a rich Sheik or Oligarch rides to the rescue, its likely to be
Stratford or no new stadium at all.
David Lammy
David Lammy is an intelligent man, but his behaviour is increasingly
petulant and unprofessional. After the election he finds himself
relegated from ministerial positions to the humdrum of an MP’s routine.
My suspicion is that he has seen this campaign as an easy home run, to
solidify local support and to court the kind of press attention he needs
to keep his profile up.
Why has he done nothing to speak up against the Northumberland Park
proposal getting beaten up in the planning process? Surely he has much
more jurisdiction there, than in telling a private business where it can
and cannot move to?It’s hard to tell to what extent his motivations
come from sentimental attachment to White Hart Lane, or from more
cynical motives, but he is surely intelligent enough to know that his
argument that Tottenham will become a ‘dustbowl’ is very, very weak.
As our Surveyor explains;
“If Spurs left Tottenham in 2015 then the old White Hart Lane
area would be quickly be developed. Without the need to fit a stadium
into the site, this site would be perfect for a large mixed use scheme
of housing, offices and leisure. By waiting until their new stadium was
built and the financial climate improves, Tottenham would stand to make a
huge windfall by selling their stadium as one huge piece of development
land in 2015. The implications of this for the Tottenham area itself
would be;
a) The scheme would be much more lucrative than a stadium, and
the Section 106 agreement could include much bigger contributions to the
local community or the extension of the Victoria Line. The mandatory
addition of affordable homes and social housing would be a big relief on
Tottenham’s stretched public services.
b) A large mixed use scheme would offer far more value to the
area than a stadium only used 18-30 times per year. The taxable value of
a stadium is tiny compared to the bonanza of council taxes and business
rates from a large new development. Let alone the effect of thousands
of new residents on local shops and businesses – compared to a few hours
business a month as the football crowds grab a kebab and a pint on
their way home.”
Lammy must know this full well, yet has decided there is
significantly more political capital in jumping on a populist bandwagon.
I expected better of him, quite frankly.
What is modern football?
Perhaps the most interesting issue here is the crisis of identity
that a move five and a half miles up the road looks set to cause among
Tottenham fans. Are football clubs firmly rooted in their immediate
community, or has the widening of their appeal in the Premier League
changed this? Does a club’s history live in the soil or in the hearts
and minds of supporters? I certainly find it hard to disagree that there
is something sad about a 127 year old football club upping sticks to
chase success, especially since Tottenham are one of the few successful
clubs who operate within their means, and haven’t sold out to become a
billionaire’s plaything. They are a North London club, and moving to
East London – deliberately near the corporate Canary Wharf crowd – would
be a indication of how business and football are increasingly one and
the same.
The benefits of Stratford should not be ignored though. The 34,000
reputedly on the waiting list would finally get to see their team play,
and see their support reaping financial benefits for the club. The
larger capacity would mean that cup games and less glamorous fixtures
would have to drop steeply in price to achieve full capacity crowds. The
majority of home and away fans would find the appallingly difficult
journey to White Hart Lane replaced with the best infrastructure
connections in the country. The fans of Arsenal, Manchester City and
Bayern Munich would all contest that their history has been in any way
spoiled by moving to new stadiums. What better way to honour Spur’s
proud history than to repeat it, some will ask. With the revenues from
Stratford and the acumen of Levy, Spurs would become an irresistible
force in Premier League and European football. A sleeping giant would be
awoken, but would it’s heritage and pedigree be left five miles up the
road?
What it comes down to is that Spurs fans need to make an informed
choice. They shouldn’t assume that losing in the Olympic bid will see
their club press on with Northumberland Park – the figures don‘t stack
up in the current climate, and the club will either have to take a huge
gamble or shelve the project indefinitely. They also can’t demand
Champions League football, and then refuse to allow the club to take
steps necessary to deliver it.
If Spurs fans went into this with their eyes open, and wanted to keep
their proud history intact at the expense of their ability to compete at
the highest level, then I would applaud them. It wouldn’t be
sentimentality – it would be an informed choice to put the traditions of
their club above the lure of money.
But football fans want it all. The same fans that want to stay in
White Hart Lane will be the first to complain if Tottenham fall behind,
and their stars like Modric and Bale move to clubs like Manchester City
who are willing to buy success at any price. It is lose-lose for the
Tottenham board.
The Media
The media will play a huge part in this process, as underlined by
Tottenham’s appointment of PR supreme Mike Lee to aid their cause.
Spurs has a difficult case to make both in the bid process, and to
their own fans. Although their bid is vastly superior economically, they
have to make sophisticated arguments in an arena where the simple ones
tend to win. Fans will say “Tottenham Hotspur belongs in Tottenham’,
whilst the powerful Athletics lobby will say ‘What sense in destroying a
£500 million stadium?’. Both are compelling enough arguments to win
the debate, even if the opposing arguments are better.
Already there are signs that the tabloid press are siding against
Tottenham’s board, and they are rarely known to make u-turns once they
settle on an editorial angle. The public are going to be loath to see
their expensive stadium torn down, and it will be a brave politican to
speak up for the longer term benefits to London. Braver than David
Lammy, certainly. Yet unlike the mouthy owners of West Ham, Tottenham’s
board have yet to really press their case, and it would be foolish to
write off their bid before they do so.
The Battle For Stratford begins. Can intelligence prevail in sport? I’m on the edge of my seat…
Posted in: Uncategorized
Thu Jan 21 2021, 20:01 by BazSpur
» Sky Sports News Links
Thu Oct 29 2020, 18:13 by DJSR
» Hello....the site is still alive!
Thu Oct 29 2020, 18:11 by DJSR
» 17 million deal for Musacchio
Fri Feb 24 2017, 18:39 by souptheyid
» How to Block Adverts on this Site !
Fri Feb 24 2017, 18:36 by souptheyid
» This is Our Season
Sun Aug 14 2016, 00:54 by vis
» 'appy New Season
Sat Aug 29 2015, 08:09 by BazSpur
» Time to say goodbye
Fri Aug 28 2015, 21:37 by Maximus
» Crouchinio
Thu Jan 15 2015, 03:00 by vis