Well lots of issues here, from the new stadium to the effects on the area, to the loss to local businesses from Enics gain. http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/oct/30/tottenham-new-stadium-local-business-demolition Just a taster on some 3 pages devoted to the subject in today's Guardian.
An estimate of 15 years for project (not stadium) completion , may aswell add a few to that. I look foward to trundling around it on my mobility scooter!
My Dad said awhile back that he'd be in the ground before the foundations for the stadium are, at this rate we all will!
Everything's contraversial around my way, they can't put up a street lamp without some busy body complaining.
Or just not reported or just overshadowed by the Olympic hype. My own brotherinlaw lost his premises and business due to the redevelopment of the Olympic site. Nevertheless even though this issue of big eating small is par for the course it should at least be reported so that people know what they are subscribing to.
Every part of London where events were held was hit in the pocket. Local businesses in Stratford and Greenwich lost out because spectators were herded from station to stadium and back, usually bypassing any local businesses (but it's okay, you could buy IOC-approved food and drink from corporations that don't even need your money in the stadium!), whilst the whole towns along the cycling route were told to shut down for the weekend the road race was on by the police.
Make that every part of Britain. For example, lottery money was diverted to the Olympics, halting projects all over the country.
"Spurs have bought substantial land in that area, now proposed for residential development, and recently moved ownership of the property offshore, raising the possibility of avoiding corporate capital gains tax when it is sold at a profit – although Spurs deny the transfer was motivated by tax avoidance." What other possible motives Spurs have to move the ownership offshore (Bahamas) if not to avoid tax? Surely, not another Rosie47 account?
Obviously it is for tax avoidance, although our owner is based in the Bahamas too. Probably not the best for a West Ham fan to talk about robbing the tax payer. Aren't you guys borrowing £50mill interest free off one of the poorest councils in London because you couldn't afford to convert the Olympic stadium?
Without West Ham's help, that £500mil stadium would become a white elephant. Please check the facts about that £50mil "interest free" loan and moreover it's UK's legacy. Spurs are robbing the poor, forcing business to relocate probably to somewhere out near the M25. Remember what happened in the south east when relocation happened prior to 2008?
A stadium which they clearly won't be able to fill, following the most dubious bidding process in recent history. Half-season tickets available now, kids for a quid v Villa and the Chelsea game on the 23rd is on general sale, unbelievably.
Our plan involved zero public funding. I'm pleased we didn't get it but it was a far more generous business plan and other events companies also offered good financial deals for the taxpayer but they just didn't have people that work for their companies also working for the committee that decided the preferred bidder. Robbing the poor? Businesses in the area will receive a big boost when they have their new regeneration project inline with much increased crowds at the Lane. What happened with the last relocation? Do tell because I've not got a clue what you're on about.
Yes it's likely that we will take abuse from a West Ham fan trying to gain the moral high ground. Who are the owners of West Ham, remind me? The number of victims manufactured during the building of the Olympic stadium reduces the White Hart Lane ramfications to insignificance.
Are you trying to say that Newham council giving West Ham an interest free loan of £50m isn't robbing the poor? You better not have had a straight face when you were typing that twaddle.
