e-petition

I don't know how to link a pdf file, or if its even possible, so if you Google this "ashburton grove public money", you'll see a pdf titled
SUBJECT: ARSENAL FOOTBALL CLUB S.106 AGREEMENT Click on that and go to 7.5, particularly the bit when it turns over to the next page. If I'm reading it right, your decision to use housing as a way of funding your stadium has impacted the tax payer anyway, by having to put money toward the "affordable housing". Was that element of the project built?

 

A part of the s106 planning agreements were to provide affordable housing. These were built by Newlon Housing Trust and provided to 'Key workers' i.e. Nurses, Police, teachers etc, people who do essential jobs on average wages.

http://www.newlon.org.uk/about-us/newlon-at-arsenal/

Full details of all the affordable housing projects can be found here:
http://www.newlon.org.uk/about-us/developments/developments-at-arsenal/

As you can see, Arsenal made considerable investments into the local community when they built the Emirates

 

Yes, very droll! Just once would you mind not side-stepping my point...

7.5 Officers of this Council have held discussions with the Housing Corporation
with a view to securing their investment in the development so as to secure
a greater number of affordable homes. In this context the term affordable
homes includes socially rented, shared equity and key worker
accommodation. The Housing Corporation has stated that they will make a
decision regarding regional investment later this year (June/July). If the
Housing Corporation are able to invest in the scheme then there is a realprospect of securing more socially rented and shared ownership housing
than is currently required from AFC. It is however pertinent to point out that
a substantial level of public funds will be required from the Housing
Corporation to secure 25% socially rented affordable housing across all
sites. As such the recommended Final Terms maintains the levels of
socially rented, shared equity and key worker housing as set out in the
Heads of Terms.

The Emirates project has cost the taxpayer, yes or no?

 

No, the taxpayer invested in social housing. Private developers who develop social housing as a condition of their s106 sell them to the HC or local authority at cost price. The alternative source of HC housing is from the open market where they will pay full market values. So, it is correct to say that the building of our new stadium actually saved the HC a lot of money.

 

Droll? Side - stepping your point?

You asked if the 'affordable housing' part of the project was built and I told you it was - not sure what part of that you don't get Notsosmart?

As MrsC has pointed out, Social Housing is usually built by private developers and then sold to Housing Corporations, Councils or private landlords at open market values.
A part of the s106 planning agreements for the Asburton Grove project was that Arsenal contributed significantly to the local community in terms of regeneration.
This included building affordable homes, a new waste/recycling plant as well as an education centre and making significant improvements to the transport infrastructure.

MrsC has hit the nail on the head, the Taxpayer invested in the social housing element, that is standard practice, but where this project differed is that Arsenal paid for the majority of it.

No public money was used to build the stadium - and if Spurs want to build a new stadium s106 planning agreements will apply to them to, Spurs will be expected to contribute to the regeneration of Tottenham.

It's the same with any major build. For example - Sainsbury's want to build a new supermarket near where I live. Part of the planning agreements stipulate that they must also pay for road improvements, provide a new shuttle service for shoppers from the main town and back and build 50 new homes to offset the development.

You seem to be fishing for evidence of Arsenal being given some kind of unfair financial assistance when actually the opposite is true and Arsenal made significant financial investments into the community.

 

Notsosmart - seeing as you seem to be having difficulty grasping the financial aspect of this project perhaps this one sentence will elucidate it for you:

The £470 million cost of the project, augmented by the extra costs the club had to meet besides building the stadium itself, was a formidable obstacle, especially as Arsenal were not granted any public subsidy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emirates_Stadium

 

what's the argument,the regenaration of the area is the council's job,not Tottenham's so,as they want the club to do the job for them then they should pay them for it,as they would have to pay any company to do the work.

 

I'm afraid it doesn't work like that. Any major development will necessarily have an impact on the local area and as part of that, Government have a piece of legislation in place called section 106 planning agreements. They stipulate that the private developers must, as part of their project, make improvements to the local area.

Arsenal were required to make significant contributions to regeneration in the area - you can read the s106 document here:
http://islington.gov.uk/DownloadableDocuments/Environment/Pdf/section106finalterms.pdf

As a private business, making money from their development which has impacted the local community, it's only right that that business should contribute towards the regeneration of the area instead of expecting the taxpayer to pay for it.

 

in other words it's a cop out to save them money,it is suppost to be to pay for that sort of thing,but it seem's to be just to give the mp's a above average life.

 

Spurs should consider themselves lucky that Haringey council are not asking for anywhere near as much money as Islington did for Arsenal, who contributed more money to the local community than any other project of it's size in the country.

 

Or you could say that it's right that private business invests in the community which serves it.

 

i see United states has posted on the Arsenal board they Have passed the 5k signature mark,and should have enough,in a couple of months

 

That may, or may not be the case. I haven't checked it. We all know that part of the subsidy is a quid pro quo between Levy & Boris. Funny how our O.S. bid receded once the agreement on NDB was in place. There seems to have been far less in the press about WHU & Newham council officoals, too. I can't imagine why that would be!

 

i'd actually quite like to see it get to the commons. All that effort getting signatures, only for it to be dismissed out of hand by the MPs.

 

You asked if the 'affordable housing' part of the project was built and I told you it was - not sure what part of that you don't get Notsosmart?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, I get it all, don't you worry, as said on another thread, just amusing myself in a quiet fortnight!

 

Well, you know what they say about small minds.......

 

Yep...I do have one you know

 

I don't know enough about the whole thing to offer an opinion, but that part of the Wikipedia article is unsupported by an outside link.
It's essentially a baseless claim, though I'm not suggesting anything about the truth of the statement.

 

Perhaps the wiki link could cite this letter from the Chief Exec of Islington council who confirms that no public money was offered to Arsenal:
http://www.davidlammy.co.uk/sitedata/PDFS/Corbyn_Letter_REDACTED.pdf

A full breakdown of how Arsenal paid for their stadium and improvements to the local area can be read here:
http://www.arsenal.com/155/unhoused.../arsenal-confirms-funding-for-stadium-project

Again, reiterating that no public money was made available for Arsenal.

 

Extremely poorly worded.
Was financial assistance offered prior to the move or requested subsequently?
Was it offered prior to the move by anyone other than the council?
It's either so intentionally vague as to be misleading or it's just a very poorly drafted letter.

Could you please highlight the part where it says that no public money was made available for Arsenal?

What did happen to the WRC?