Levy speaks

Levy: we'll quit Lane


Staying put is not a viable option, says Levy



Chairman Daniel Levy told Special Report that Tottenham will leave White Hart Lane even if the club doesn't win the right to take over the Olympic Stadium in Stratford.


Levy says it is imperative for Spurs to find a new home if the
club wants to develop and that protests against any move by "a very,
very small group" of supporters will not change his mind.Spurs
are going head-to-head with West Ham in the race to move to Stratford
and a decision on who should get the ground that was originally planned
for Friday has now been delayed.Almost 60 percent of readers who entered a skysports.com poll on behalf of Special Report felt that West Ham should move to the new facility, but Levy remains determined that the final decision falls in Spurs' favour."I
think the problem with the current situation that we are in now at
White Hart Lane is that the project is currently not viable so we would
have to go back to the drawing board and that would obviously mean
looking at other locations again," he told Special Report."I'm
totally confident that we would have no problem selling out a
60,000-seater stadium [at Stratford]. As far as the fans are concerned, I
have to say that it is a very, very small group of individuals that are
making it clear that whatever happens - even if we couldn't build a
bigger stadium - that they would want us to stay here."There is
always going to be competition between London clubs - we are all London
clubs - so wherever we are located, there is still going to be rivalry."Former Spurs chairman Lord Alan Sugar claims the supporters will soon get over the disappointment if it takes the club forward."The next important thing is that the club is ready to move to the next level," he said."Regretfully,
moving to the next level might not be possible in Haringey due to a lot
of things that have come out as far as the financial issues are
concerned. It could put the club into a lot of financial problems."Intimidating

Four
months ago, West Ham were the only candidates bidding for the Stratford
stadium and the process looked straight-forward for the East London
club.But Tony Gale, who played for the Hammers from 1984-94, told Special Report that he has his reservations - particularly if the club intends to keep the athletics track in situ."The Olympic site is great but you must have a football ground on it," he said. "It
is obviously easily accessible and has all of the amenities that the
current ground doesn't have but if they have to have the running track
there's no way that I would want West Ham to go to the Olympic Stadium."I
would want them to stay at West Ham and probably build over the
'chicken run' on the far side of the pitch opposite the tunnel because
there is room to go up and above that; that would probably add another
5,000 to 7,000 on the capacity which would take it up to about 42,000. I
think that is realistic for West Ham."Gale's views are echoed by
former West Ham goalkeeper Phil Parkes, who added: "It used to be so
close and so intimidating; it was a fantastic atmosphere that you had
there, especially on an evening game under the floodlights. It was
something very, very special."I think that if they go to the Olympic Stadium they will lose that if they keep a running track around the pitch."

you never know, eitherway the fans who don't want a move better get used to the idea because we are moving home, but like i keep saying , no matter where we go we will still be THFC

Have We Lost WHL? Part 2


The answer looks like yes but the reasons are not the
same that we were originally told. I have to say that I don`t think our
Chairman Daniel Levy has been completely straight with us fans.

The
discussions and planning for the Northumberland Park Development were
well underway well before the Olympic Stadium was even mentioned as an
option. The OS only came into the equation when discussions with
Haringey Council started to go Pete Tong. Then in order to get the Legal
Certificate 106 for planning approval in October 2010 Daniel said he
might be going for the OS.

We fans thought that was a bargaining
position and then suddenly it became the only option. Whether you agree
how the bid was handled, and the proposals contained in the Spurs bid,
the bottom line is that Daniel may have misjudged the political
dimension because we have witnessed a wave of protest about digging up
the running track and been accused of basically betraying the so called
'Olympic legacy'.

In a recent interview to BBC Sport Daniel
implied that Northumberland Park was never a real option and today we
hear that if we don`t get the OS then we are going to have to move from
WHL anyway! So tell me Daniel, and tell all the fans what all that
money, time and effort that went into the planning of the NPD and all
the money spent on Architects, planning permission etc. what was that
for?

At what point was the NPD not viable? and why did we take
it down to the wire with Haringey if a new stadium was never going to
stay in N17? Was NPD ever for real? Which was the real bargaining chip?
the OS or the plans for the NPD? I cannot believe that Daniel and his
team thought that the cost of the NPD was going to be too much as late
as October 2010. Something doesn`t add up.

The bottom line is
that not only have our plans in the bid brassed off the UK and Olympic
Committees and politicians but there is every prospect now that, not
only do we lose the Olympic Stadium, unless we come to a compromise
about the running track, but we lose NPD and we still have to lose White
Hart Lane whatever the outcome. The stadium discussion is hitting the
same form as our team is!

Written by OyVeh Maria



Read more: http://www.spurs.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=7507315#ixzz1C3z54YKg

be years yet if we dont get os, thank god.if he keeps making things up as he goes along, finds a new site, changes his mind again, backers pull out,P*ss off a couple of other clubs,i can collect me pension on the way to the lane for extra spending money.

I thought I would check what NPD had cost to date - this is the extract from Spuds 2010 accounts published on the 11th November;

" We now hold tangible assets with a net book value of £123.6m on our balance sheet; the current Stadium, plant and equipment amounts to £38.9m of these assets; NDP £72.4m and the new Training Ground £12.3m. The current book value of the property which has been acquired to ensure we can deliver the NDP is £52.0m, with a further £20.4m being spent on planning and professional fees.

This huge investment over the past five years has been funded through equity contributions and long-term debt financing. This investment was recently underpinned by the granting of local planning consent for the NDP master plan."

Absolutely astonishing to walk away from an investment of £70+ million in NPD

i was happy to stay in tottenham the way it was proposed and now they tell us its not viable, no i am not happy to move to east london jim, i would rather miss out on the os and yes stay at tottenham for the moment till the dust settles and people find a new strategy/funding with a clear head because to me it seems like, oh the ndp project is a no go ,quick lets go to the os rip it down and start all over. now levy is acting like a spoilt child saying if we dont get the os then were moving out anyway. so be it but lets weigh up different options instead of this mad rush thats happening now. it wasnt so long ago people on hear were saying dont worry daniels only doing it as a smoke screen to hurry along the ndp plan? really,seems the ndp was the smoke screen. were all gonna have an opinion on moving, sorry if people dont like mine but i dont think calling it whinging makes your opinion more valid.

shearspur wrote:i was happy to stay in tottenham the way it was proposed and now they tell us its not viable, no i am not happy to move to east london jim, i would rather miss out on the os and yes stay at tottenham for the moment till the dust settles and people find a new strategy/funding with a clear head because to me it seems like, oh the ndp project is a no go ,quick lets go to the os rip it down and start all over. now levy is acting like a spoilt child saying if we dont get the os then were moving out anyway. so be it but lets weigh up different options instead of this mad rush thats happening now. it wasnt so long ago people on hear were saying dont worry daniels only doing it as a smoke screen to hurry along the ndp plan? really,seems the ndp was the smoke screen. were all gonna have an opinion on moving, sorry if people dont like mine but i dont think calling it whinging makes your opinion more valid.

But you want success for tottenham in this business called football shear ! but at whl we have one hand tied behind our backs against the goons and man utd and chelsea, and now the billionares of man city.

You want parity with those clubs then you also have to accomodate the ultimate potential fan base, capacity 35,000 whl wont bring you that parity.

i know a*se have moved and got better revenue, but have they spent more than us over recent seasons ? i would say not, have they spent the big bucks on the big players you think will bring all you want. no, and yet they are constantly ahead of us. buying the right mix of players is what you need and they dont all have to cost the millions and millions that you think this move is going to bring to this club.we have spent the millions on players and it hasnt brought the things you crave yet.i am happy the way the club is going gradually cos its in the right way.

We have been one of the biggest spenders over the last 3-4 years. We can have a bigger stadium with NPD. We would be 4000 off of 60000. Levy has been preparing NPD for 2 years or more. Do you mean to tell me he hadn't seen the pitfalls before all this. He must have had discussions with Haringey Council and he must have know Haringey's stance on NDP. Either he is trying to bluff Haringey or he has been incompetent in his dealings with them.

Quote from the article I posted

In a recent interview to BBC Sport Daniel
implied that Northumberland Park was never a real option and today we
hear that if we don`t get the OS then we are going to have to move from
WHL anyway! So tell me Daniel, and tell all the fans what all that
money, time and effort that went into the planning of the NPD and all
the money spent on Architects, planning permission etc. what was that
for?

shearspur wrote:i know a*se have moved and got better revenue, but have they spent more than us over recent seasons ? i would say not, have they spent the big bucks on the big players you think will bring all you want. no, and yet they are constantly ahead of us. buying the right mix of players is what you need and they dont all have to cost the millions and millions that you think this move is going to bring to this club.we have spent the millions on players and it hasnt brought the things you crave yet.i am happy the way the club is going gradually cos its in the right way.

And spending those millions shows the ambition of the club shear, but spending millions doesnt guarantee success as you are implying.

Playing to a potential fanbase of 60,000 will help toward the cause though, it will tell the world we are up for it, and the added funds will make us a major player when it comes to determining where the best players go, at the moment we have the berbatovs of this world snubbing us because man utd are a bigger club.

Well fck all that, i want us to be just as big as man utd, they win what they win not so much because of ferguson but because they are held in awe and are seen as the ultimate to play for....thats what i want for tottenham.

Whichever route we finally take will mean staying at the lane for something like another 5 years anyway what happens if it all goes pear shaped in the meantime. So far as I can see the whole thing depends on us being champions league which is possible but not a given.

seebee1944 wrote:

Whichever route we finally take will mean staying at the lane for something like another 5 years anyway what happens if it all goes pear shaped in the meantime. So far as I can see the whole thing depends on us being champions league which is possible but not a given.

One certainty is if it does all go "pear shaped" that Levy will be a long way away, as is invariably the case with these business experts. Some other business expert will be CE and pick the pieces up - and of course there will be you lot turning up every week, regular as clockwork.

It would be remarkable that Levy survives P*ssing £70+ million up the wall on NPD so far and still not being any nearer moving to a new stadium.We shall see.

An open letter to Daniel Levy


25 January 2011


by martincloake

I sent an open letter to Daniel levy this morning asking for
clarification of a number of issues surrounding the stadium following
yesterday’s extraordinary developments. I will update if I receive a
reply.
Dear Daniel,
I hope you don’t mind me using the open letter method to contact you.
It’s a method you’ve used yourself and it is one which is quite
efficient in communicating with the large number of people who will be
interested in the subject of the new Spurs stadium. So while I’m sending
this by email direct I am also publishing a copy on my blog. I hope you
will feel able to address the questions I raise in both forums.
Just to explain who I am, I am a supporter and writer/journalist.
I’ve worked with the club on a number of occasions on books, and I also
write about the business of sport in a freelance capacity. So I have a
personal and professional interest. To be totally transparent, my view
at the moment is that I would prefer if it is at all possible for the
club to stay at its current site and play at the impressive new stadium
outlined in the Northumberland Development Project. While I don’t agree
that emotion can, as you suggested in the wake of the weekend’s press
coverage, be entirely removed from football matters I recognise that
commercial realities have to be faced. Which is why I think it is
important that the questions I am about to pose are answered.
I think it is clear to say that there is significant opposition to
the plan to go to Stratford. You have stated that you have received
significant email support for the move, I can say I have seen
significant opposition. I don’t believe an inbox measuring contest is a
particularly productive or informative route to go down. There are
clearly divisions among our own support. I would suggest that answering
the questions I am about to pose would provide much-needed clarity. I
know there are a number of considerations affecting people and
organisations beyond the club, but let’s start with what we can deal
with ourselves.
I hope you will accept this approach as an honest attempt to cast
light on a number of issues which are worrying fans. A sense of place,
history and tradition is important to any football club, as is emotion,
and all of these things are what makes the brand strong, as the club’s
marketing department has recognised effectively over the years. This is
why I believe that any move that could be seen as compromising those
factors needs to be explained in a very transparent manner, with the
onus on the reasons to move rather than those against staying. Think how
much better it would be for all concerned if there was unity behind the
plans to go forward, at least within the Spurs family. Of course, you
own the club and it is yours to do with as you like. But we all like to
believe, in our different ways, that the club is ‘us’ and the strong
identity with the club and the current location is part of what makes
the asset you now control so valuable.
1 In your latest statements you have said the NDP is “unviable”
and that if the Stratford bid fails we will “have to go back to the
drawing board” and move out of Tottenham in any case. Yet in the
detailed plans still currently on the club website, and in the
presentations made to accompany their launch, the NDP was presented as
viable. When did the NDP become unviable? What factors made it unviable?
Why does so much appear to have been spent on promoting an unviable
project? And why is it still presented as a viable project on the club
website?
2 It would be good to get the full detail of exactly what the
“extra” costs being talked of by the club relating to the NDP are. Much
has been made of the s106 monies, but these were included in the
original, viable, plans. Are these costs “extra” or just “more than”
those associated with the Olympic Stadium? I hope you can see the
important difference between these two concepts. On another point of
detail, a figure of an extra £50m has been cited, while s106 and related
costs are cited as totaling £16.4m. Where does the other £33.6m come
from?
3 On a related point, is it the case that Stratford has emerged as a
“more viable” option than the NDP. Again, there is an important
difference between Stratford being the only viable option and it being a
more viable option.
4 As far as I can gather, the planning permission for the
Stratford Stadium after the games allows only a 25,000 seat stadium
which opens on a limited number of occasions every year. If Spurs were
to move in, this would mean the planning process would need to be
reopened. How does the cost of this, plus what must necessarily be at
the moment unknown s106 costs associated with it, stack up against the
NDP?
5 With the proposed rebuilding work at Stratford, plus the time
taken for the renewed planning process which seems unavoidable, the new
stadium at Stratford would not be ready for occupation until at least
2016. This is two years after the date the club originally indicated it
could move into the NDP stadium. Given the arguments about the need to
stop falling behind rivals with greater capacity, how does a minimum
two-year delay in doing so impact on the club’s financial position?
6 Much has been made of the transport problems around the current
ground. On the official website the transport section of the NDP
presentation says “The transport infrastructure here is already in
place, with four stations and up to 144 buses an hour serving the
stadium area. Together with planned and proposed service improvements
and new investment to be made by the Club, they deliver enough capacity
for the increased number of supporters visiting the new stadium.” The
site goes on to list a 20-point plan which would deliver a transport
strategy. The view now seems to be being put that the transport issues
around the NDP are insurmountable. Has the situation changed, and if so
how? Or has Stratford emerged as a better option, rather than the only
one?
7 Having described the NDP as “unviable” does this mean that if the
Stratford bid is rejected there is no plan B for stadium development?
Given the obvious need to compete in the reality of today’s football
market, and given the minimum of four seasons – more if we have to
develop new plans – it will take to move, does this mean you don’t think
the club can compete?
8 It’s been suggested that the Stratford move may be a precursor to a
sale of the club. On Radio Five you categorically denied that the
board was going to sell the club. When asked: “So you have no interest
in selling Spurs”, you answered “Correct.” When asked further: “Under
any circumstances at all?” you said, “We have no intention of selling
the club.” This may seem to many people a rather surprising position for
an investment company to take. So, if you’ll forgive me asking the same
question again, can you confirm that the board of Tottenham Hotspur FC
do not now, have no intention of, and will not at any stage in the
future, sell the club?
yours
Martin Cloake

Just seen results of a poll carried out for the BBC in London:-

For the West Ham plan 81%
For the Spurs plan 13%

Methinks we get it we gonna be bloody unpopular.

OLYMPIC POLL RESULTS

• The stadium should be used for athletics after 2012: 70% agree, 26% disagree
  
• After the Olympics there is no need for an athletics stadium: 16% agree, 77% disagree
  
• Which bid should win? West Ham 72%, Tottenham 13%, neither 12%
  
• It would damage the legacy if the stadium cannot hold athletics after 2012: 63% agree, 31% disagree
  
• The stadium should be dismantled and rebuilt as a football stadium after 2012: 14% agree, 81% disagree
  
• Athletics is not popular enough to justify keeping a purpose-built athletics stadium: 25% agree, 68% disagree
  
• Stadiums should not be used for both athletics and football, as an athletics track would make football less enjoyable: 28% agree, 59% disagre
  

SuneJim wrote:

THIS OPINION WILL KILL US REMEMBER THAT,,,,,,, i'm stopping here becausei have to some just don't understand progress!

dont think not moving to east london will kill us jim. it might mean you dont get what you think your gonna get by moving there.i understand progress but that doesnt mean i have to agree to east london, maybe theres other options if we dont go there.there are prob 16 other clubs without massive stadiums in the prem not been killed.