E- petition :No public funding for Tottenham Hotspurs' planned redevelopment

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
U

United States

Member
May 24, 2011
209
2
18
NULL
Responsible department: Department for Culture, Media and Sport

This petition calls on the Government to prevent any central or local public money being used to support Tottenham Hotspurs' redevelopment of its football ground. Tottenham Hotspurs is a commercial concern which receives many hundreds of £millions each year enabling its owners to purchase players for tens of £millions of pounds and pay them of £millions of pounds. None of this expenditure stays in the community. This is not a company short of money, assets or the ability to raise funds commercially. Normally when a company wishes to develop land it pays the local council to build the necessary infrastructure. Public money should not be used to support this private company nor special terms be offered. There are many better uses for public money that does not include a rarely used stadium and associated infrastructure. Support public spending on health, housing, and education for the community in Tottenham not this needless and blind free gift to a commercial company.

Please cast your vote at: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/14605.


Thank you
 
Boris won't take no notice,after the riots he wants the area regenerated hence the Money,not for the Stadium,for the rest of the area
 
97000 odd still needed it will cost taxpayers more if Spurs Build the stadium and leave the area to by Regenerated by the Government.the Money's for the area ,not the stadium
 
In all honesty even if the petition reaches 100,000 signatures, i doubt very much if it will be debated in the commons.I think the powers that be will realise that the overwhelming majority of signatories are Arsenal fans out for a bit of mischief making
 
goonercymraeg said:
In all honesty even if the petition reaches 100,000 signatures, i doubt very much if it will be debated in the commons.I think the powers that be will realise that the overwhelming majority of signatories are Arsenal fans out for a bit of mischief making
Click to expand...

Actually, if they asked the locals if they would want the £8m going to the spuds redevelopment or on something else of their choosing, a majority would probably go for the latter. N17 is in dire need of regeneration and the immediate area around the ground is not the most needy. That part of the high road has always been cack for business.
 
I don't see why the council are chipping in for regeneration, did Islington chip in for us when we built the Emirates ? As I remember the council made a whole lot of stipulations BEFORE granting planning permission.

Harringey are a bunch of chiefs though, they couldn't manage a piss up in a brewery. Tossers.
 
If I were council leader I would let them have the money, but make it a stipulation that they name the new ground 'Campbell Road' as it is as close to it as it is to WHL :p

I'd offer them another £2m to add 'Sol' to the front too,
 
theHotHead said:
I don't see why the council are chipping in for regeneration, did Islington chip in for us when we built the Emirates ? As I remember the council made a whole lot of stipulations BEFORE granting planning permission.

Harringey are a bunch of chiefs though, they couldn't manage a piss up in a brewery. Tossers.
Click to expand...

No, Islington didn't chip in for the Emirates development. Despite Daniel Levy's insinuation that they had :


Arsenal and Wembley which were both awarded public sector assistance. These developments required substantial public sector intervention and assistance and would not have progressed without the injection of public sector money.
Click to expand...
When in fact the Chief Exec of Islington Council categorically stated that they 'did not offer financial assitance' to Arsenal whatsoever.

http://www.davidlammy.co.uk/sitedata/PDFS/Corbyn_Letter_REDACTED.pdf

tut...tut - Mr Levy <doh>
 
Please learn the facts before you make ridiculous assumptions. Any money the government give us would be put towards regenerating the area, rather than building the stadium itself. Originally David Lammy had said that the club would have to fund the improvement of transport links and infrastructure if we wanted to build a new stadium, now it seems they have conceded that this is their responsibility - although we will still be carrying it out. And yes, your local council paid for significant transport improvements when you moved stadium.
 
Wandering Yid said:
Please learn the facts before you make ridiculous assumptions. Any money the government give us would be put towards regenerating the area, rather than building the stadium itself. Originally David Lammy had said that the club would have to fund the improvement of transport links and infrastructure if we wanted to build a new stadium, now it seems they have conceded that this is their responsibility - although we will still be carrying it out. And yes, your local council paid for significant transport improvements when you moved stadium.
Click to expand...

No they didn't, you need to learn the facts, which were that Arsenal payed TFL £7.6m for transport improvements.

Whenever a large development is agreed, the developer has to contribute funds to local services, known as a “Section 106” agreement. This is normal procedure anywhere across the country – whether you are Spurs or a Supermarket. In fact, Spurs has been asked to contribute only 3.5% of the total development cost (£15 million - £17 million). This is incredibly low compared to similar developments, including the Emirates Stadium.
The link for the Section 106 agreement for Arsenal F.C. and the Emirates Stadium is here: (http://islington.gov.uk/DownloadableDocuments/Environment/Pdf/section106finalterms.pdf)
The agreement includes the following:
&#61623; £7.6 million for improvements to TfL for transport improvements (also seen here: 3.10
Office of David Lammy MP 6
http://islington.gov.uk/DownloadableDocuments/Environment/Pdf/arsenalappendixa4.pdf)
&#61623; contracts and construction jobs for local people
&#61623; provision of over 1,000 affordable and key worker homes
&#61623; improvements to the Aubert Court Housing Estate
&#61623; new commercial space
&#61623; new learning centre at Northern Triangle
&#61623; new day nurseries
&#61623; new community health facilities in the Highbury/Holloway Road area
&#61623; funding to promote community and social regeneration
&#61623; Arsenal Development Small Grants Fund for local community groups
&#61623; improvements in Ringcross Area at Lough Road West
&#61623; public open space around the stadium and in the area
&#61623; new Waste Recycling Centre and i-recycle educational centre
The Haringey component of the s106 agreement for the proposed Northumberland Development Project is said to be worth between £15 million and £17 million - far smaller than the amount Islington Council demanded Arsenal F.C. pay for the new waste incinerator alone (£60 million).
The leader of Islington Council at the time even said: “"This is the highest proportion of s106 improvements compared to the size of development, in any scheme in the country" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2006/may/03/sport.comment1)
The council and I supported the club against the TfL request of £5.6 million to improve Tottenham Hale Station and it supported the club against the amendments demanded by English Heritage, including the preservation of buildings along the High Road.
Click to expand...

http://www.davidlammy.co.uk/sitedata/PDFS/Rebuttal-1.pdf
 
Arsenal didn't receive any financial assistance from Islington Council, the letter from the Chief Exec spells that out clearly.
http://www.davidlammy.co.uk/sitedata/PDFS/Corbyn_Letter_REDACTED.pdf

Arsenal were also required to pay significant sums towards local improvements, including transport links including Holloway Rd station.

So controversial was the idea of building a massive new stadium on the grim Ashburton Grove rubbish recycling plant that the council extracted what it claims is a marvellous series of extras. The planning "gain", contained in what is known as a s106 planning agreement, included a state-of-the-art £60m new waste-recycling centre across Holloway Road and the 3,000 new homes. The club also agreed to pay £7.6m towards upgrading Holloway Road and Drayton Park stations among other transport improvements - money now saved following Transport for London's decision that it represents better value to rebuild the other two interchange stations.
Click to expand...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2006/may/03/sport.comment1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back