Lammy slams Olympic move at Westminster

Spurs hit by Crystal Palace plans to relocate Selhurst Park to nearby National Sports Centre
By LAURA WILLIAMSON

Crystal Palace will this week unveil plans to relocate the club which could have an impact on Tottenham’s bid to take over the Olympic Stadium after the 2012 Games.
The Championship club hope to move from Selhurst Park to the National Sports Centre in Crystal Palace in south London.
This is the same site Tottenham have proposed for redevelopment in order to create an athletics legacy beyond the 2012 Olympic Games.

Tottenham argue that retaining the running track in the Olympic Stadium would significantly restrict spectators’ views but, West Ham United, who are also bidding to take over the stadium, have pledged to keep it.
Haringey Council have also formally outlined their opposition to Tottenham’s proposed move to Stratford.
The council claims suggestions it has ‘dragged its feet’ over the club’s plans to redevelop White Hart Lane - known as the Northumberland Development Project - are incorrect.

Haringey says it has asked for a £15-16million contribution from Tottenham to help offset the ‘impact of the development on the local community’ and some highway improvements. This is around 3.5 per cent of the overall £450m cost of the project.
A statement read: ‘Haringey Council has always been committed to keeping Spurs in Haringey. If Spurs leave, not just Tottenham would miss out. Their desertion would deprive areas of vital regeneration opportunities and affect the whole of London.
‘Spurs leaving would effectively hand north London to Arsenal, destroying decades of history and leaving tens of thousands of fans with no local team.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk

spursphil wrote: It looks like the legal opinion Lammy got is out of step with reported case law.
Tottenham have defended their name against allegations it is just descriptive of an area and Tottenham won the case. Opening the way for Spurs to use it elsewhere.

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/tm/t-os/t-find/t-challenge-decision-results/o15002.pdf

At first i was against a move away from Tottenham, but now i have seen how all the vested interest groups have all tried to get their pound of flesh from the club, I am more than happy to move to Stratford.

Also i think the extra costs imposed on the club with the changes made to the plans have put the club in a very difficult position.
I don't think the club would admit it, but i think they could well be having trouble getting finance to cover the increased costs of the NDP.

The costs of developing the OS being much lower would appear to be a no brainer for the board.

Great bit of digging Phil - The interesting thing about the trademark judgement, that the club worked so hard to secure because they saw it as a means of screwing a few stall holders flogging tat out of pennies, is that it should allow a new fan based club to rise in Tottenham (Like FC United) but to be able to use the name of Tottenham.

FC Tottenham ?

AFC Tottenham ?

Tottenham FC ?

Presumably the plans to start up a new club won't start 'til the OS issue is decided.

Clearly if the club that takes over Stratford wants to remain as Tottenham Hotspur that will not be a problem but it all might get a bit messy. What goes round ......................

The Telegraph are also running an article on the Crystal Palace bid. Yet another variable to throw into the mix . . . . . .


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/olympics/8265364/London-2012-Olympics-Crystal-Palace-

And even Ken Livingstone has an opinion !

http://www.localgov.co.uk/index.cfm?method=news.detail&id=94392

Haringey Council Speak Out

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

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

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

Dear Lucas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kind regards

Claire Kober
Leader of the Council

Below is the “fact sheet”:

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


The S106 agreement

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

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


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

Spurs leaving would effectively hand North London to Arsenal, destroying decades of history and leaving tens of thousands of fans with no local team.
While Spurs fans travel from far-and-wide, the team is also widely supported in the local community and the roots of the club’s support are embedded in Tottenham. The wishes of many of these fans are being ignored.
Spurs say that other clubs have moved stadium without having to change their name. However, many of the examples cited have either not moved since the early 20th century, have moved to within the same area (e.g. Arsenal) or plan to move to a nearby site. A more relevant example would perhaps be Wimbledon’s move to Milton Keynes, and subsequent change of name to MK Dons.
Moving to east London would be a wholesale change for Tottenham - the club’s name is undoubtedly synonymous with the area.
Nobody for one second suggests councils are always 100% honest and don’t have their own agenda when they talk, but at least it’s something. Some information that has been given to the fans, the people that matter and the people who care about what’s happening at the moment.

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

say no to stratford http://www.petitiononline.co.uk/petition/say-no-to-stratford-hotspur/434

http://www.thfc1882.com

TOTTENHAM supporters are planning sit-in protests if the club presses ahead with controversial plans to leave their home of 112 years and move five miles across London to the Olympic Stadium in Stratford.
Aggrieved fans desperate for Spurs to stay in their home borough say they are also considering boycotting games, as they and West Ham prepare for next week’s decision on who will take over the arena after the 2012 Games.
The development comes after Crystal Palace announced they hope to relocate to the National Sports Centre, a move that could scupper Tottenham’s plans to redevelop the athletics facility as part of its Olympic project.
Hundreds of fans carrying banners protested at Tottenham’s proposed move in the streets surrounding White Hart Lane before Sunday’s draw with Manchester United.
We Are N17, which opposes the switch to Stratford, said yesterday that it plans to step up its campaign and will consider boycotting home games if the Olympic Park Legacy Company next week picks Spurs over West Ham.
“Those are exactly the type of measures we’ll take,” Tim Framp, a spokesman for the group, told City A.M. “It doesn’t stop at the preferred bidder stage – it doesn’t stop until the fat lady sings. We may do a sit-in protest after a game. We don’t want to leave Tottenham, so what could be more appropriate?”
The Tottenham Hotspur Supporters’ Trust (THST) says its members are opposed to a move away from north London by a ratio of two to one, but said it would consult before joining protests.
Spurs hope to save around £200m by relocating instead of building a new ground next to White Hart Lane, but THST chairman Bernie Kingsley told City A.M.: “We worked with the club before Christmas and those figures weren’t on the table or explained.”
Tottenham have a strong economic case for being preferred by the Olympic Park Legacy Company but their plan to scrap the athletics track has caused a swell of support for West Ham, who also argue their proximity makes them the logical choice.

anicoll5 wrote:

spursphil wrote: It looks like the legal opinion Lammy got is out of step with reported case law.
Tottenham have defended their name against allegations it is just descriptive of an area and Tottenham won the case. Opening the way for Spurs to use it elsewhere.

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/tm/t-os/t-find/t-challenge-decision-results/o15002.pdf

At first i was against a move away from Tottenham, but now i have seen how all the vested interest groups have all tried to get their pound of flesh from the club, I am more than happy to move to Stratford.

Also i think the extra costs imposed on the club with the changes made to the plans have put the club in a very difficult position.
I don't think the club would admit it, but i think they could well be having trouble getting finance to cover the increased costs of the NDP.

The costs of developing the OS being much lower would appear to be a no brainer for the board.

Great bit of digging Phil - The interesting thing about the trademark judgement, that the club worked so hard to secure because they saw it as a means of screwing a few stall holders flogging tat out of pennies, is that it should allow a new fan based club to rise in Tottenham (Like FC United) but to be able to use the name of Tottenham.

FC Tottenham ?

AFC Tottenham ?

Tottenham FC ?

Presumably the plans to start up a new club won't start 'til the OS issue is decided.

Clearly if the club that takes over Stratford wants to remain as Tottenham Hotspur that will not be a problem but it all might get a bit messy. What goes round ......................

The judgement means Tottenham can move and still keep the name, but any phoenix club starting cannot use the name Tottenham.

I would imagine that most clubs in the Premier league would have the same trademark law protection.

London 2012 Olympics: protest against Spurs stadium plans gathers pace as Richard Scudamore meets fans

Richard Scudamore, the Premier League’s chief executive, has met representatives of Tottenham fans amid increasingly vocal opposition to the idea of relocating to the Olympic Stadium.

A group of supporters from the “We are N17” group visited Scudamore at the League’s headquarters to explain their concern at plans to move the club after 112 years at White Hart Lane.
They are particularly unhappy at a perceived lack of consultation over a proposal that would have such fundamental implications for the history and identity of their club.
“We are lifelong football fans who have supported the club and poured money into it, and football fans don’t always have much, so we should have the right to have a say in its future,” said Tim Framp, of We Are N17.
“When the club first went into this, it was downplayed and presented as an ‘expression of interest’. We feel like it is almost happening through the back door.”
Tottenham have indicated that they would fully consult with fans if they become the Olympic Park Legacy Company’s preferred bidder next week.

According to Framp, Scudamore advised We Are N17 that the Premier League had taken legal advice and there was no basis for it to oppose either the Tottenham or West Ham proposals for the Olympic Stadium.
Even so, We Are N17 sense that their campaign is gathering real momentum, with around 300 fans signing their petition to stay in Tottenham on a daily basis.
They also unveiled banners at the most recent home game, against Manchester United, and believe that most supporters are now beginning to realise how serious club chairman Daniel Levy is about a potential relocation.
The Olympic Stadium site in Stratford is around seven miles from the club’s current home, with Tottenham MP David Lammy even questioning Spurs’ right to keep their name should the move go ahead.
Tottenham do also have planning permission from Haringey Council to redevelop the site adjacent to White Hart Lane, but have been unhappy at a projected £50 million rise in costs.
Levy has stressed that his “guiding principle” will be to preserve the club’s overall financial stability.
“For me, if we move, it would not be my football club anymore,” said Framp.
“As a fan, you take the rough with the smooth; there are good and bad sides to remaining in Tottenham, but it should not just be about money.
"Football fans do not care about the money. If we wanted to support a rich club, we could support Manchester United or Chelsea. We want our history, which is what defines us.
“Tottenham is more than just a name. It is the traditions that you love; the people you drink with in the pubs before the match and the people that have become your friends that you sit with in the stands.”
Mike Lee, who is leading Tottenham’s PR campaign for the Olympic Stadium, has called for people to “cut through some of the emotion and focus on what is viable and sustainable”.

Well I read it again Phil and I think it means the opposite - it recognises that the football club can use and control the trademark - and therefore the stall holders are out of luck flogging unlicensed scarves and other football related souvenirs outside the ground - it also recognises that Tottenham is a separate geographical entity and that the club have no right to control of the name 'Tottenham'.

It seems to me it would be very difficult to argue that a new club setting up in Tottenham would be barred from taking the name of the locality on the grounds that a club in Stratford claims the right to retain it.

May all be academic in any event - I see Keith Edelmann is chairing the committee

cynicsid wrote:Any rules of nameing rights will be directly relevent to the PFA the FA and to the premiership. Law wont come into it. If the FA say it's OK then they wont allow another club to use the name. Simples.

You mean like FC United of Manchester ?

And what the the PFA got to do with it !

Levy argues against 'easy option'

Spurs chairman Daniel Levy has claimed that retaining a running track at the Olympics Stadium would be "the easy option, but the wrong option".

Levy promised Spurs fans "one of the finest stadiums in the world" if their bid to take over the venue after the 2012 Games is chosen over West Ham's, and he expressed concern over whether a new ground near White Hart Lane is viable.

Spurs' plans would see them demolish the stadium and build a new one without a running track - West Ham's plan is to keep the structure at a reduced capacity and with the athletics track retained.

The Olympic Park Legacy Company are to make a recommendation next week and Spurs have even managed to secure the support of Brazil football legend Pele, who wrote a letter to the OPLC backing their plan.

Levy said in an open letter to fans: "The easiest option for us would undoubtedly have been to bid for the Olympic Stadium site with a retained athletics track. But it would have been the wrong option.

"The front row seats in the Olympic Stadium with a retained athletics track will be up to 45 metres from the pitch; in our stadium design they would be 8m from the action.

"Football and athletics cannot co-exist successfully in the same stadium.

"There are examples all over the world of where clubs have removed tracks or moved stadiums simply because of the poor spectator experience and the lack of sustainability in the long-term due to decreasing attendances. We never considered for one moment placing our fans in such a stadium environment."

Levy said that should Spurs be chosen as the preferred bidder, the club would have a full consultation process with supporters, a number of whom are campaigning against a move to east London.

"It would rank amongst the finest stadiums in the world and deliver one of the best fan experiences anywhere in Europe," he added.

"Our proposals for the Olympic Stadium site include an iconic 60,000-seater stadium, the construction of which is fully financially guaranteed."

Spurs' original plan of developing a new stadium close to their current home, called the Northumberland Development Project (NDP), is likely to be more costly and troublesome.

Levy added: "I must once again repeat the concerns we have about the viability and deliverability of the NDP. The cost of consent has been high.

"No progress has been made with the remaining land owners and this is a potentially costly issue.

"Compulsory Purchase Orders are of course one route to resolving this, but that process is uncertain and can take years to conclude.

"Our guiding principles remain the same - we are committed to taking this club to the next level and an increased capacity stadium is central to that intention; and we have to seek a stadium solution which does not undermine the financial stability of the club or its ability to continue to invest in the first team."

Levy pointed out that UEFA's new financial fair play rules, where clubs in European competition can only spend what they earn, made it imperative that Spurs are able to boost match-day income by moving to a bigger ground.

"Perhaps more importantly, we now have over 35,000 fans on the paid for waiting list for season tickets. It is an astonishing figure and a real reminder of the strength of support for this club," he said.

"The choice is between standing still or moving forward. A new stadium is critical to our continued success."

Tottenham say they would provide an athletics legacy for London by redeveloping the Crystal Palace athletics stadium.

Pele's letter to the OPLC specifically mentions those plans.

It says: "I understand they are based on creating a dedicated football stadium and providing an athletics legacy at the original home of athletics (as I remember it!) Crystal Palace.

"That would be a great stadium. I really don't understand wanting to play with a track around the pitch. The players won't like it and it probably won't last.

"As a player I need to feel the passion and the intensity of the fans. The best stadiums connect the fans to the pitch and if you lose that you lose something that really matters and eventually you lose the fans."

http://www.teamtalk.com