New Stadium

  • There is only one thing weirder than posting on internet forums... lurking on internet forums!
    Registration only takes a minute and removes most of the adverts. You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

For those interested in the Regeneration of Tottenham, Spurs appeal against Haringey's refusal to grant planning permission for The Goods Yard Goods Yard Tottenham – Goods Yard Tottenham has been heard - started 8 May but apparently ended last week - by The Planning Inspectorate

There is no date atm for when the Planning Inspectorate will issue their decision.

Haringey of course want to develop the whole of the High Road West area (which includes both Spurs 'The Goods Yard' site and the adjacent B&M site which has also been refused planning permission) as a JV with Lendlease so have a massive conflict of interest in deciding whether to grant Planning Permission or otherwise. A singular failure of ethics ?

Spurs own approximately 40% of the High Road West area, and their redevelopment plans were for circa 40% affordable housing . Spurs Brook House Development, completed a couple of years ago and included rehousing all of the former Love Lane residents who wished to remain in the area had, I think 100% affordable housing and a school etc. Spurs, jointly with Fairview Housing, are also redeveloping 500 White Hart Lane.

So Spurs are certainly doing their bit in redeveloping the area (choosing to redevelop brown field sites so all housing built is additional to current housing in the area) , doing so at a far faster rate than Haringey Council who are noticeable for their very slow progress to get anything done !.
 
Last edited:

Register to remove

Totti

Chess extraordinaire
For those who were worried about going to the stadium to watch the CL final and not being able to see the screens from all angles of the stadium.


The screens will be on the pitch for you too.
 
Yes, I get all that but they've put the NFL logo on it and the white band around the pitch, as it's astro why not put all the markings on ?

It's no big deal, just a thought I had.
The NFL logo is permanent; the artificial turf is actually coloured that way (as opposed to being painted over green turf) and was laid as a single piece.

The white sidelines are also permanent.

Line marking like the 10 yard hatches will be added in a non-permanent way but the NFL logo is integral.
 
The NFL logo is permanent; the artificial turf is actually coloured that way (as opposed to being painted over green turf) and was laid as a single piece.

The white sidelines are also permanent.

Line marking like the 10 yard hatches will be added in a non-permanent way but the NFL logo is integral.
Permanent in as much as the artificial turf is coloured to make the logo, but the artificial turf can be removed easily enough
 
Permanent in as much as the artificial turf is coloured to make the logo, but the artificial turf can be removed easily enough
Granted, but the point I was making was that it’s not that they have painted the NFL logo and nothing else (as was the query), it was laid like that from the start. Of course nothing is permanent as they can rip up and relay anything; but that section was laid pre-printed with the logo.
 

YTpaxton

Supporter
Home again.
For those who were worried about going to the stadium to watch the CL final and not being able to see the screens from all angles of the stadium.


The screens will be on the pitch for you too.
Why are people wanting this to go to General Sale? Surely that will open it up to being infested with scousers?
 

Register to remove

Some interesting research on naming rights ... go to the end for a laugh ...

Duff & Phelps found that Manchester United's Old Trafford home still remains the most valuable with a potential value of £26.75m per season, with fierce rivals Man City not that far behind at £21.9m. Spurs then come in third with a potential value of £17.5m per season. Liverpool (£16.9m), Chelsea (£16.75m) and Woolwich (£16.65m), unsurprisingly, make up the top six, with the Reds seeing their naming rights estimate rise over 50% following a successful 12 months on the pitch at home and in Europe.

Woolwich, Bournemouth, Brighton & Hove Albion, Huddersfield Town, Leicester City and Man City are the only teams to have a stadium sponsor at present, although that is expected to change in the future.

DL is apparently holding out for >20m a year with a big advanced payment, two years ago that sounded insane, but today it's sounding pretty near the mark ... DL knows ....

West Ham trail a long way behind with an estimated value of £5.55m per season for naming rights at the London Stadium. However despite hiring two consultancy firms and including the Sponsorship income in the 'greatest ever move' forecast, it's now been three years with no sponsor and none are looking likely anytime soon ....
 
Some interesting research on naming rights ... go to the end for a laugh ...

Duff & Phelps found that Manchester United's Old Trafford home still remains the most valuable with a potential value of £26.75m per season, with fierce rivals Man City not that far behind at £21.9m. Spurs then come in third with a potential value of £17.5m per season. Liverpool (£16.9m), Chelsea (£16.75m) and Woolwich (£16.65m), unsurprisingly, make up the top six, with the Reds seeing their naming rights estimate rise over 50% following a successful 12 months on the pitch at home and in Europe.

Woolwich, Bournemouth, Brighton & Hove Albion, Huddersfield Town, Leicester City and Man City are the only teams to have a stadium sponsor at present, although that is expected to change in the future.

DL is apparently holding out for >20m a year with a big advanced payment, two years ago that sounded insane, but today it's sounding pretty near the mark ... DL knows ....

West Ham trail a long way behind with an estimated value of £5.55m per season for naming rights at the London Stadium. However despite hiring two consultancy firms and including the Sponsorship income in the 'greatest ever move' forecast, it's now been three years with no sponsor and none are looking likely anytime soon ....
This is the biggest naming rights deal I am aware of in North America

$40m pa (Canadian $'s rather than US$ I think) for 20 years for the stadium that houses the Toronto Maple Leafs and Raptors (ie a multi- sport stadium) by Scotiabank (who also have operations in UK owning amongst other things Britain's oldest bullion bank),

But the next biggest seems to be Metlife at US$ 17m - US$ 20m pa for 25 years.

So £20m pa for 20 years, or something similar is not impossible, but definitely a stretch for Levy to land
 
A few press stories swirling around. What's your take on the safety certificate - do we need to go through a process to get one permanently, and are there any things still to be done ?
We definitely need to go through the process, as you know we were granted an interim certificate to allow us to move into a 90% finished stadium ... this is pretty standard for any new building ... that certificate would require that a list of remedial / completion works would need to be carried out by a certain date, at that time the interim certificate becomes permanent. If work still needed doing (and I've no idea on that) the interim certificate could be extended. I think the Wembley refit was well over a year finished before the final certificate was granted ... so newspapers saying 'the ground will be closed' there's not a chance in hell, we'd sue the council for 10's of millions, if the ground was safe for 6 games last season and in the interim we've only made it safer they wouldn't have a leg to stand on ...
 
For those who were worried about going to the stadium to watch the CL final and not being able to see the screens from all angles of the stadium.


The screens will be on the pitch for you too.
Any suggestion where'd be best to get seats for viewing the screens? I guess high up in the corner so you are in line?

And maybe low down if they are doing pitch screens.
 
For those interested in the Regeneration of Tottenham, Spurs appeal against Haringey's refusal to grant planning permission for The Goods Yard Goods Yard Tottenham – Goods Yard Tottenham has been heard - started 8 May but apparently ended last week - by The Planning Inspectorate

There is no date atm for when the Planning Inspectorate will issue their decision.

Haringey of course want to develop the whole of the High Road West area (which includes both Spurs 'The Goods Yard' site and the adjacent B&M site which has also been refused planning permission) as a JV with Lendlease so have a massive conflict of interest in deciding whether to grant Planning Permission or otherwise. A singular failure of ethics ?

Spurs own approximately 40% of the High Road West area, and their redevelopment plans were for circa 40% affordable housing . Spurs Brook House Development, completed a couple of years ago and included rehousing all of the former Love Lane residents who wished to remain in the area had, I think 100% affordable housing and a school etc. Spurs, jointly with Fairview Housing, are also redeveloping 500 White Hart Lane.

So Spurs are certainly doing their bit in redeveloping the area (choosing to redevelop brown field sites so all housing built is additional to current housing in the area) , doing so at a far faster rate than Haringey Council who are noticeable for their very slow progress to get anything done !.
http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=326265

For those interested, Spurs documents rebutting the Haringey Council evidence given to the enquiry have been added at the end of the planning portal for The Goods Yard.

It reads very well and exposes that the council were having problems in making a case - a good deal of the council evidence relies on policies covering the situation where existing housing is being pulled down and replaced as opposed to the Spurs scheme where all housing is built on brownfield sites and hence all housing is additional to that existing. It also emphasises that Spurs are meeting the yardstick of 40% affordable housing.

I have no experience of property planning enquiries but have found in other commercial court cases that its exceptional to win every point, so whilst I'd be optimistic about Spurs position based upon my understanding of the points being made I suspect we'd end up with a bigger s.106 contribution, but overall looks very promising atm.

If this one is 'won' I'd guess the council will settle the B & M development on a similar basis rather than risk another planning enquiry.
 

The B & M development now has its own website.

300 new homes with 40% affordable housing plus pubic space amounting to 10% of the entire site (4305 sq metres or 43,000 sq ft ), 500 cycle bays etc.

With Spurs owning about 40% of High Road West (of which this site is a part), this development is essentially integrated into the surrounding developments of The Goods Yard and Brook House making it easy to move round and access the Brook House primary School, WHL station etc.
 

Register to remove

Top Bottom