Don't you just love it when you can eavesdrop on two complete numpties discussing something that neither has a clue about!
You haven't got a clue what you're talking about HAIG. Spurs will benefit from taxpayers money for the redevelopment project and once again you've made a tit of yourself. Or are you standing by your assertion that the redevelopment project of WHL will receive no taxpayers money ?
The irony of you trying to lecture me on development! If only you knew, pal. Look, I'll give you one last chance to redeem this for yourself and to grasp something that is, in reality, very simple. 1. Spurs are going to spend £x million on building their new stadium. 2. The size and nature of that develop will entail them in putting in place certain infrastructures and amenities in the surrounding land. 3. The local planning authority, as part of the planning conditions, will want Spurs to carry out those works (including the installation of local amenities), as part of the overall development 4. Spurs, quite rightly, should not be forced to pay the full cost of what will be land owned by the local authority for the benefit of the local community. 5. In order to help defray the cost to Spurs of carrying out those parts of the development that will benefit the local community, grant funding is made available. 6. Ergo, Spurs does not benefit directly from the grant monies, the local community does.
That's not necessarily true. A condition of most sizeable planning consents is a s106 agreement of some sort ie an agreement to give something back to the community that you are going to profit from, whether that be a financial contribution, the provision of affordable, intermediate or social housing or the development of facilities that will benefit the local community, all at the developer's own expense. If in this instance Spurs are having to go above and beyond what would be considered a fair agreement in order to provide the requisite infrastructure to support the stadium development then it's fair enough that they should receive a grant of some sort. I think that is unlikely though as if they are taking any community space away by building the stadium it would be only just right and fair that they need to cover the cost of replacing it but also that no extra costs should be carried by the club as they are actually providing a service to the community by generating extra jobs through the development of a new stadium. My guess would be that they lobbied for a grant on this basis ie that they are going to be an even bigger employer in the area and therefore government money should help make the dream of Europa League football in the new stadium a reality.
Well, none of us here seem to know what the planning conditions are, so it's all academic. There is no longer any section 106 agreements; that's been replaced with, what's termed, developer contributions. But, with respect, Schteeeve, that's not what I'm referring to, here. I cannot be arsed going into this in any more depth, as it's like being on a busman's holiday for me. I'm sat, here, learning some new blistering moves on my guitar, and am going to do a bit of recording to relax after a hard day's loafing around.
Nope. Section 106 agreements are still in place. They are sometimes referred to as developer contributions. But then again so is CIL which is different to s106 but also a developer contribution.
No. Spurs new ground is not being funded by taxpayers money at all, they've been spared the cost of the infrastructure development costs due to the regeneration impact on the area.
The point being made is that section 106 payments (or developer contributions) have nothing to do with what is being discussed. In fact, it's practically the opposite of what's being discussed. If Spurs are being given any grant money (and I don't know if they are are not), it's being given with the express purpose of regenerating the surrounding site in order to improve it. None of the money is likely to find its way into the bricks and mortar of the actual stadium.
I've no need to read it again.The question I'm asking is if Spurs have been spared any costs,then surely the costs must have been paid by someone.
It's not a case of Spurs being "spared" any "costs." It's a case of Spurs carrying out the local authority's dirty work for them, with the local authority meeting only some of that cost and Spurs paying the balance by way of developer contributions. Are you being purposely obtuse?
Spurs are not 'carrying out the local authority's dirty work at all'. Spurs are benefiting from being given planning permission to build a new stadium which will have a bigger impact on the infrastructure of the local transport network and local resources. With increased people numbers comes increased pressures on local services and transport, which the local council will have to pick up, along with a contribution from Spurs (as many section 106 agreements specify) But the point is that Spurs will benefit from this overall improvement of the local area,(the area is not being developed otherwise) which is being paid for in part by the local authority and thus are benefiting from taxpayers money. Ergo you Spuds have **** all to whinge about when it comes to West Ham and the OS, especially when you wanted it too, and presumably the taxpayer benefits that came with it.
The local infrastructure and transport network will clearly benefit from the stadium and the development of the surrounding area. Claiming otherwise is clearly a very, very dumb argument. The fact that you claim that there's no other development going on shows that you don't even know what you're talking about, as usual. As for Spurs bidding for the OS, it was a completely different bid which involved a completely different payment scheme. Your assumptions are miles off, again. The only reason you're posting about this at all is to try and have a dig at Spurs, which the issue no longer concerns. One day you'll post on here and it will have nothing to do with the club or HIAG, but most of us will probably have died of old age by that time.
