——————————————
Woolwich Arsenal, the club that changed football. Have your name in the book as an official sponsor. Updated information here
The day when Fulham tried to take over Arsenal – the full story in “Making the Arsenal”
—————————————————
News from Down the Lane
By Tony Attwood
If you want to know who is paying for the new Tottenham stadium near White Hart Lane, it is easy: it is Tottenham Hotspur and the London tax payer.
If you want to know what the benefit is to the local area – forget the issue of schools and social housing – that has all gone. All the talk of 100 affordable homes and £1.2million for school improvements paid for by Tottenham has vanished into thin air.
Worse, they have now signed a new planning agreement for their new stadium and will get the money the Mayor of London promised them.
Amended planning proposals for the £400m Northumberland Development Project have been approved by Haringey councillors – but not for the original deal.
The original agreement with Haringey Council in 2010 included £1.2m to increase pupil capacity in Haringey schools and those in Enfield (the borough next door which houses a lot of Tottenham fans), as well as a commitment that 50% of homes built under the scheme would be “affordable” (meaning kept within the price range of those renting property in the area, plus local essential service people such as teachers, hospital workers, social workers, police officers and the like).
Now we find these requirements have been removed from the agreement – with the remaining £15.5m infrastructure and transport improvement costs being met by the council and the Mayor of London.
So if you live in London, you are going to be paying for Tottenham’s new stadium, whether you are a supporter or not.
Haringey Council will give (yes give) £9m on the scheme, while the Mayor of London Boris Johnson has said his council will give £18m. Tottenham now have a tiny £477,000 of planning commitments to deal with.
Not surprisingly the chairman of Tottenham Hotspur Daniel Levy could hardly contain his joy when he announced he was “delighted” with the result. He said he was grateful for the council’s support which must be the understatement of all time.
Here are his actual words: “We welcome the public sector coming together to further regeneration in an area with such a real need.
“We are proud of our roots in Tottenham and we are committed to seeking to deliver a world class new stadium, associated developments and the ensuing benefits of employment opportunities, economic uplift and community gains.”
The council, in changing its mind so radically about Tottenham’s need to pay for its own stadium, as Arsenal did, says the benefits of more jobs, transport, and business mean that the original commitment on housing can be dropped because if “the scheme is not viable then no new homes will be built” at all.
In one of the oddest bits of logic of all time it also says that because the new homes are to be one or two-bed flats few children would live in them, meaning the school place funding can be scrapped. But the project was always for such flats – so why did the original plan include more school places?
The new stadium will hold 56,000 people. There will be 280 new homes, a new square, a public space including a podium for community events, road improvements and some sort of unspecified development at White Hart Lane Station and Tottenham Hale Station. (The road improvement idea could mean anything – in that the road system by the ground is so awful that any change at all could be called an improvement).
There will also be a new supermarket and space for businesses although who would want to open a business there is not clear. The supermarket will begin building work in September and be built by 2014. The stadium is scheduled to be built by 2016 but the new homes will not be built until 2018.
Councillor Alan Strickland, cabinet member for economic development, said: “We’ve been clear all along that Spurs’ plans and commitment to invest in north Tottenham have the potential to kick-start the wider regeneration of Tottenham. Following last summer’s riots, the need to transform Tottenham for the benefit of everyone who lives, works and studies in the area is stronger than ever.”
Meanwhile a group of parents and teachers are setting up a sport-based free school in Tottenham with the backing of the Harris Federation, which runs 13 academies in south London. Free schools are free in the sense that parents don’t have to pay for them, but are actually funded by the government – so more government spending is now likely in the area.
Of course many Tottenham fans have persistently called for government funding for their new stadium, on the grounds that “Arsenal got state money why can’t we?” In fact Arsenal got no state money for the Emirates stadium and development of the Highbury apartments – and one can only say to Tottenham supporters – if you believe Arsenal did get state money please supply some sort of evidence – just as we are supplying evidence above of Tottenham getting state money.
In fact both the Emirates, and Highbury stadium 99 years ago, were strongly opposed by the local authorities and later this week members of the Arsenal Independent Supporters Association will be receiving a new book in its Arsenal History series which reveals the actions of the Highbury Defence League and how it persuaded Islington council to oppose the move to Highbury in 1913.
Meanwhile questions are still being asked about the procurement of documents during Tottenham’s failed attempt to get hold of the Olympic Stadium at Stratford – an application which led to the government withdrawing its bid process in the face of a possible EU enquiry into corrupt practices. Prosecutions may follow – four have already been arrested. If anything happens, Untold will cover it.
Funny old world down the Lane.
————————————-
Latest from The corruption files…
Transfer cash is directly related to criminal activities: the allegations and the court case
———————————————————-
Why does Arsenal not sack Arsene Wenger? This is why.
Is this as bad as it gets for Arsenal? Don’t you believe it
LMAO. so how many spuds hang out on this site waiting for something to moan about? Sure seems like a lot, what an amusing end to the day. Thansk Mr Attwood
))
That’s a can of worms and a half there! Improving Harringey can only be a good thing and I have to admit that Spurs have played hardball with the various councils rather well. It does show that all is not well down the lane. There is obviously some concern over potential revenue.
I also wonder about the viability of selling out a 56k seater. There’s no track record of CL participation to boost the brand as we had.
nice 1 tony you’ve really got us Spurs fans wound up. we have bitten big time. keep up the great blog.
Stupid article.. Try reading this before you post such drivel. http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/spurs/The+Stadium/new-stadium-plans.page
This article talks extensively about the regeneration, road improvements and transport links, which is one of the planning requirements of Tottenhams development. Any muppet can see the boost this new development will bring to the community which is one of the most deprived in Europe.
The money supplied by the government will be towards the regeneration, road and transport links… NOT the STADIUM!
My point is, any business whether it’s Tesco’s, Asda’s, Arsenal or Spurs, has to pump money into improving local infrastructure. Daniel Levy has just played hard ball and managed to get the council contributing towards this. Don’t forget at WHL the transport links are crap, we have to walk from Seven Sisters station. Unlike The Emirates where you have a good choice of stations to walk from.
@Woolwich:
The questions of motive and viability can only be answered in the context of who is receiving the money
Seems that Arsenal fans have yet to be introduced to the concept of news portals like Newsnow. Maybe you’ll be ready for it one day.
?? Anne I really don’t understand what you’re insinuating. Are you saying someone’s getting a bung? This isn’t like the invasion of Iraq, where Dick Cheyney awarded some of the rebuilding contracts to his old employer Halliburton co. or where Cheyneys own company Bechtel was awarded a contract and it had George Bush’s friend George Schultz on the board… No this is Tottenham a total dump which will cost millions to regenerate.
Really dumb comments
Oh want a laugh Harrys gang getting all wound up about Some government Money now where have we Harry that one before ( sorry that’s heard not Harry) THE GUNNERS FOR EVER !!!!!
My apologies, I did’nt sign that last post.
Yours sinerely ,
Woof Woof !
And the Harris Foundation, god’s gift to the youth: is it meant to layoff and replace union teachers and cut back on after school programs with its sports-based academies? And, perish the thought, is there any scintilla of a prior link-up between any of ‘arry and ‘arris and boris and strickland and levy? Not even thinkable, she wrote.
Rhys Jaggar,
What salary/wage are your jobs for the poor that are not supposed to result in a shuffle the poor off somewhere else? Is this poor removal or is it not? All your majestic prose about entrepreneurial spirit does not (yet) answer that question, which you seem to be so concerned about in the name of community. Abn Whose community might that be, Mr. nothing to do with politics?
DC,
Asking you to ask them: Just How does it all improve the lot of the WHOLE T’ham population? Do the poor need sports academies or decent schooling and jobs?
How the do it: The Arse-Beatdown stenographers at the Manchester Guardians Richard Williams and David Taylor have serially belched forth the same globular talking point from their Him-Book, hitting Fergus’s rivals – AVB and AW – in one sceptic breath: “His (AVB) team were not as dishevelled as Arsenal had been against Milan at the Stadio Giuseppe Meazza last week but at times they were not far off” (Taylor) “In their 3-1 defeat at the hands of Napoli, at least Chelsea were not as utterly hopeless as another London side in a different part of Italy last week” (Williams) Oh happy day when these Keyboard Kommandos have to type the tale of how Don Fergus failed to win the league. If the Titanic went down 100 years ago April, there’s always a chance that the Fergus XX will be derailed and these two forced to write the post mortem. That would be a season worth savoring.
I was just wondering if some of the AAA that come on here now and then have shown their true colours this time?
Sadly a large number of comments had to be rejected from this discussion because of abusive commentaries and because of false email addresses.
On the Holloway Road issue, Arsenal committed in the original deal to pay part of the cost to upgrade the station, and the Underground the rest of the money. The Underground then changed their minds and said they did not want to invest in Holloway Road station. Obviously that benefited Arsenal, but it was hardly their fault.
At the end of the day it seems that Tottenham is just some wannabee Arsenal who is trying to do the same thing as we do a few years after we have done something.
First they want to move to the Olympic stadium…. LOL
Then they want to build a new stadium like we have done….
And I think this is where the fun will start as the supporters don’t realise yet that Arsenal has been the only club in the recent history of football that has managed to stay in the PL after building a new stadium. The rest have all gone down.
Remember that and so you better enjoy your current season so far because building a stadium might be the beginning of the end
Interesting that in all these comments no one seems actually to be arguing that what the article says is untrue. Tottenham has dropped its social housing and school building scheme but is still getting government money to help the overall development project.
Tony – why would anyone deny that Spurs have dropped the social housing from their scheme? It’s an undeniable, well documented fact. It would be pointless to attempt to argue against it.
Besides, there’s no need to argue against it or to justify what Spurs are doing. There’s nothing to hide. Nothing to be ashamed about. If you took your gooner hat off for one second, you would concede that anything which helps to get the project off the the ground and kick start the regeneration of one of the UK’s poorest and most neglected wards has to be a good thing.
Why. after decades of neglect by successive governments (national and local) should Spurs be expected to stand alone in footing the bill for the regeneration of the area? Isn’t it enough that they already propose to invest £450 million? £27 million of public money goes some way to making up for years of neglect by the public purse, I suppose, but it is still chicken feed by comparison to Spurs’ massive contribution.
And please stop trying to suggest that any public money will be going to Tottenham Hotspur. It will all be spent on public works, as you very well know.
By the way, you ought to know that it is not uncommon for the social housing element of development projects to be dropped – especially in areas such as north Tottenham, where the balance of housing stock is already hugely weighted in favour of social housing. There is a greater need for private housing in the area.
To be fair – and to address some of the ‘points’ raised here – even though I don’t like Tottenham Hotspur… the club is slap bang in what is possibly the biggest orc ridden shit-hole in London and anything that brings up the area is worth a few quid of my taxes.
Holloway was a bit of a dive a few years ago too (although nowhere near as bad as Tottenham) – if anyone recalls the days before the stadium?
Also – for the record the article is right to point out that the club has welched on the deal somewhat and, as far as I can tell, has exhibited no sign of ‘good faith’ throughout the entire proceedings in the way it sought leverage over the local council by showing interest in the Olympic stadium – but that is just part and parcel of the soulless machinations of business.
@DogF,
I agree.
@bob,
I don’t really understand your question? How do you not see that ANY, regardless of whether it involves housing or not, project to redevelop and regenerate an area of neglect and poverty in which a community lives does not benefit and improve the lives of its population??? Do you live in the Hamptons or in Beverly Hills so are out if touch? Football clubs used to be significant contributors to their communities so anything that brings that back, regardless of your support for that club or not, should be encouraged, surely?!
Try paying a visit, using public transport, to Tottenham next time you’re in London and see for yourself!
Very informative article, Tony.
My only quibble would be on the use of the term ‘affordable’ homes. I know this is the term this government and the last one like to use, but what is deemed ‘affordable’ under the term is housing that less than half of Londoners could actually afford to live in.
And my problem on some of the contributions about ‘developing the area’ is, I can’t see how building 200+ houses that are not even ‘affordable’ in the current use of the term is benefiting the area. They will probably be bought up and re-let at very high rents.
And I don’t see why public money should be spent on developing a football ground when Tottenham dwellers need jobs and homes. How many real lasting jobs for local people will arise from making Tottenham football ground bigger?
I do know what Tottenham is like, by the way; I worked there for 25 years.
Having read an article that essentially spells out what a blinder Levy has played with the system – all to Spurs’ advantage – how can so many Gooners use it as evidence that things are imploding down at the Lane? Levy is the smartest and toughest Chairman in the Premier League since your own David Dein. We have a superb squad – GREAT MORALE – and a manager who loves proving all his doubters wrong.
You’ve had a great run with Whinger – played some sublime football and won a lot of trophies – don’t spoil it by being so ungracious now the balance of power is shifting our way. I’d be more concerned by how you’re going to survive next season without CL football rather than trying to relieve yourselves on our French Fries.
DC,
Where I am, people are promised the moon with new stadia and all they get is unused posh parking lots, new train stations for well-off commuting fans, after-school sports programs that do Zero to upgrade existing schools nor bring any decent paying jobs that might bring actual social mobility, etc. It’s cosmetic here. Loss of generations of parkland and playing fields. Just broken promise after broken promise, and all at taxpayer expense for the glorius stadia and tax breaks for the clubs and its investors. If your words and lecturing me about the real benefits actually occur on the ground and improve the WHOLE of T’ham, then of course it’s a great thing, as you claim. And yes, I have seen T’ham for myself a few times, so you might consider not assuming that I haven’t been to Blighty 10 times at length, doctor. (Very quick to seize on where we live, aren’t we?) If your avowed faith in all these promises and their actual results on the ground make even half the difference you are vouching for, then I’m truly very happy for the people of T’ham. I am skeptical, for the reasons I say above, that the motivations are half as generous as being claimed by those who hunger for pricey private homes at a discount within a stone’s throw of the hot new team’s hot new stadium. And, Sir, I find your tarring me with a Johnny-Foreigner Hollywood or Hamptons’ attitude to be snide and rank Stereotyping. You were late to calling out Doublegooner on this crap, but you do know better. It’s impressive that you, a J-F like I am, would play that card (however softly) as well, to discredit my pov. To me, the bottom line is does and will your policy really help the WHOLE of T’ham; or will it just be another exercise in poor-removal – that is, removing the blight from blighty. Let’s be clear on what is afoot here, or not. If it’s really and truly better than that, then your advocacy will be well spent and I’ll applaud you for it. I share Tony’s implicit doubts, but, in truth, it all remains to be seen: and you and I and Tony know it. And, for all your nostalgia, these Teams are not what they used to be in terms of the community spirit that used to be. Suddenly they’re all-giving do-gooders and more. Bosh.
Pat,
Cheers on your excellent posting. A breath of fresh air that few of the postings thus far could withstand.
DC,
Oh, and first try dealing directly with Pat’s 25 years of insight about T’ham and housing/investment patterns before you play your “pseudo intellectual” card at my pov.
Tony,
Do you have a pov about what Pat has just said?
Hamish,
Judging from this posting, you are not actually hamish, but a braggart and tribalist.
another strong and incisive article on UA. Spurs fans have every right to dispute it’s merits, however, so few of them are able to argue thier points constructively. If this was used a measurement of thier class then I’m glad to be an arsenal (AW) supporter…
@bob,
I find your cantankerous and rather ill-i formed comments always entertaining! Particularly your assertion that I am prejudiced as Doublegooner may be.
FYI, my family came to the UK, and specifically to North London, from a war-torn African country in the 70′s. They lived and i grew up in a similarly deprived area as the current district that the Spuds presently reside in and repute to represent; consequently I know first-hand exactly what the lot of the WHOLE deprived population is like there.
Anything, regardless of your cynicism, that improves things I wholeheartedly support; and if any youngster from that area is able to attain an opportunity to better themselves from any improvements of the infrastructure then, then i thank God for that. To have achieved what i have achieved by becoming a senior doctor from such humble beginnings, and i do find your rather tedious referrals to my occupation fascinating, i see that only as short of a miracle.
Wrt my profession, do you have some kind of underlying animosity towards doctors, particularly those that are quite successful, which is why you keep referring to it? I begin to wonder!
@Pat,
Affordable housing relates to the national average and is subsidised so that those individuals on Social Security benefits or low incomes for London-living, even after the weighting, can afford to live here. The London councils are no-longer allowing individuals to buy their homes because of the issue of buying-to-let. Unfortunately, sub-letting has consequently increased and they are all trying to get a handle on that. Affordable housing is certainly possible as many junior medical staff i know are currently residing in them all over London and in central areas that are too expensive for their meagre incomes but attaining the development land is the biggest problem !
DC,
Always Glad to amuse you, but You brought up and constantly mention (in several posts) that you are a doctor. I mention it once here, because you have a go at my being a J-F with Hollywood-Hampton views (stereotyping, yes?), and now they’re “constant referalls” to your being a doctor? DC, I applaud your rise and attainment – I only disavow your naive optimism that some Professional Globalizing Monied Operation (PGMO) will invest in a policy that actually tries to do more than help one person, which you say is enough – that is, instead of Spuds/Levy/Backers enabling many people who endure T’ham in its distress with decent jobs at that new miracle stadium, at the club, at its construction, toward a reasonable future. I don’t see how you can use one person’s making good (the next you?) to endorse a policy that does not aim to improve the lot of more than one person at a time, and at taxpayer expense, include the expense of people in T’ham that must pay for such feeble results as helping Spuds get a spanking new home and the private homedweller/investors to be to get another play in a harsh economy. Oh, and as for doctors, it depends on what kind of doctor you are, what’s your medical paradigm, and whether you are community spirited in practice. As for my saying you are as prejudiced as Doublegooner, that’s another fantasy on your part. Good analysis does not need to create a Straw Man to knock down. (Surely the sign of an educated person.) I mentioned on day one of that sorry exchange that Doublegooner was up to no good; when you, Sir, were trying to make nice to him and patiently understanding his feeling (singular), which, as I acknowledged and applauded, you did happily disavow. So whatever are you going on about when you write that I’ve wrongly accused you of being as biased as he is; when I applauded and do still applaud you for disowning his views? Now I’ve accused you of bias? As did bjtgooner. Remember? Laughable. What matters, as you say, is the WHOLE of T’ham. The canyon between us is how to get there. And I don’t see your or anyone’s individual rise enough reason to spend money on a toy posh stadium when generating jobs – real jobs with a future – would be something that would count for many people, not one or two.
shaun,
Yes, let’s stand as one and applaud your man Levy for “playing hardball with the council” by Threatening to leave for the Olympic Stadium and, in effect, leaving Tottenham for dead unless they forked up. Oh how clever and noble; what a role model for all to emulate. What specific kind of jobs will accrue to the people of T’ham that will come out of your Infrastructure mantra? Regeneration for whom, by whom, and to whose bottom line?
bob – I don’t think that anyone is suggesting that Spurs’ £450 million investment in north Tottenham is an act of altruism. Charity isn’t the name of the game. Just business. It was no different when Arsenal built their new stadium and its associated enabling developments. It was all done for the betterment of Arsenal FC. And that’s fair enough.
But if the effect of Spurs’ investment in north Tottenham is to attract further investment to the area and jobs and further regeneration, then Spurs’ motives – just like Arsenal’s before them – are irrelevant. If the area of north Tottenham becomes a better place as a consequence of the betterment of Tottenham Hotspur, then it is a win / win.
@ Pat – once more, since you appear not to have been paying attention: not a single penny of public money will be spent on Spurs’ new stadium or the various enabling developments. Public money will only be spent on public works.
@bob,
I think that we could go on about these socio-economic and cultural issues for time immemorial so let us leave it here.
Try to start looking at life as a “glass-half full” person rather than a “glass-half empty” one, as most of us “educated” people do know life is not fair (hell we see it everyday) but to focus on the negative past and not have some hope that the future will be better, begs the question of, “why should we bother trying anything anyway, it’s not going to make any difference?”.
Had I lived my life by that ethos, then being a black-man in a white-man’s country, I would have gone through life to this point always believing that I am persecuted and I can’t see how that will have helped me.
The best way to make definitive change in things that really matter to one is to go down to ground-level and invest your will and belief into that cause directly. That is the purest way that you can expedite the change you crave if you are without faith of those others that may be trying too. Attempting it purely from behind a keyboard and LCD display is just not enough!
DC,
Another “straw man” ininsuation, that yours truly is a keyboard only person. Well I’m not, and at least we agree on something this round.
There is a misconception regarding social housing in this country. I speak from experience as I have been involved in building thousands of houses and flats both private and HSA stock. When a project is proposed the HSA has the privileged position of purchasing a certain percentage usually 10% which means that 90% will be for the private sector which will have to absorb the non profit offer from the HSA which in turn has seen housing prices rise on top of the usual 50% profit margin that most building companies work too once labour, materials and land purchase are taken in to consideration. The idea behind this 10% was more in the hope that by mixing the underprivileged with those that can afford housing would somehow integrate people into the working class or lower middleclass (government mentality) and move people out of areas defined as run down. I think you will find the opposite is needed in some areas that are inundated with social housing or those on housing benefits, More private housing will be needed or moving people from these run down areas so they can be regenerated at a later date. Please remember no where was built to be a shit hole except a toilet. it’s the people that make or break an area. The building firms do not care for social housing they are thrown together as quickly as possible so as not to impact their profit margins. So whatever you think of Tottenham football club is your concern, But please, Don’t belittle them for scrapping social housing, applaud them. After all social housing will not bring wealth into the area only perpetuate what they already have.
Sorry I missed the continuing debate – I was struck down by a bug. Probably nobody is following this discussion any more, but anyway here goes …
It is rather a damning judgment on Britain if the only way an area can be improved is by moving the working class out. How about giving them secure jobs, raising their wages, giving them homes they can afford to live in without claiming welfare benefits, moving them out of overcrowded dwellings so their children have more space to do their homework? That’s just for a start.
Since all football clubs still depend on working class people to buy the tickets and keep them going, these questions are perhaps not irrelevant on a football web site.
DC, maybe when you say junior doctors are living in the ‘affordable’ housing you prove my point. You need a family income of £44,000 to afford 80% of market rent in London. For 60% of market rent you need a family income of about £34,000. The median family income in London is £31,000. That means half of Londoners have a family income less than that.
As to housing benefit, the government has already cut that back so that people are already losing their homes because they can’t pay the rent.
@Pat,
I don’t disagree with your figures but when I state junior medical staff, I don’t just mean doctors but also nurses and ancillary staff who earn significantly less. Where I work, they are able to rent homes but buying a house, is certainly out of the question.
The issue of rents is a big problem with all the property-profiteering in London but if addressed by the local governments, with pressure and incentives placed on private developers and business people for proper long-term job creation, it is possible to regenerate such areas. There just needs to be a will to look beyond the short-term monetary gain and to look a little further to include as much of the deprived area as possible in any strategy adopted.