Stadium Planning Application Submitted

your concern for UK taxpayers is heart warming.

i'm going to thieve a post from some fellow called will8587 on spurscommunity, as i think it sheds considerable light on the source of our lad hauler's consternation ...

now, i don't necessarily agree with the 'never about business' or the 'all about egos' bits; but it's certainly true that it was never exclusively about business. if it were, spurs would be in - no question. but, as the poster suggests, this wasn't a business decision made by businessmen. it was a political one made by politicans ... in which the economic aspect is but a part. business is about pounds and pence, and levy may be a genius for it; but politics is about people, and frankly, he tends to make a mule's ass of things on that front as often as not.

not only did he alienate the people he most needed onside for the olympic, but in the process he managed to alienate his next-most-logical partners - namely lammy and the borough (district?) of tottenham - as well. oh, and why not toss in a fair percentage of the club's support, too. i can hardly wait to find out who'll be next.

masterful.

The transport links need to be upgraded before any expanding can be done. And that's not going to happen.

eewwwww! keep it to your diary, jum.





anyway, yeah, lammy's a bit of a tool, no doubt. if spurs end up leaving tottenham, it'll be largely his doing ... or at least it will have been set in motion while on his watch, which in politics is much the same thing. and if levy - a businessman - deserves criticism for political ineptitude (he does), how much does lammy - a politician - deserve?

as one who, first and foremost, wants spurs to stay in tottenham, watching these two is particularly painful. i don't know how much it was addressed on here, but there was quite a bit going around elsewhere after their big meeting a month or two back, when levy essentially put it to lammy. apparently, according to most accounts (including lammy's), levy pretty much said "you had your chance to help us, and didn't, so we've found a better option in stratford, and you can jam it" (i'm paraphrasing). 'fair enough', one might reply, but in reality, how much better would it have been for levy to say, "look we'd still love to stay in tottenham, but what we've got a shot at in stratford is simply too much better than what we can do in N17. if you can figure out some way to make tottenham more competitive - a viable option for us - well, we'd love to have a decision to make. right now, though, we just don't have one. staying here isn't fiscally responsible."

the sound political response to that (especially now, since stratford's fallen through) might've been for lammy to do anything possible to sweeten the pot ... to make N17 more competitive, if not with stratford, with whatever options might remain. instead, levy's lecture went a bit more like "we have made a decision, and it's 'fuck you'." (still paraphrasing, mind). and from there, lammy saw his best shot at saving his political skin not in futile efforts at accomodation, but in demonizing levy and THFC. his tactic? "it's not my fault they're leaving. levy and THFC care solely about the dollars (ok, pounds), and not a jot for the community and the club's heritage/tradition." great.

so now, here we are at a point when levy and lammy should be working together as closely as possible to sort this out in the best interests of all parties concerned, and they're each too heavily invested in the other being the bad guy to do so. it's phooking infuriating.

i still hold out a sliver of hope that it can work out ... that levy's assertion - "if not stratford, it still won't be tottenham - is designed to convince lammy/tottenham that THFC is still not in a position to be milked for the borough's (district's?) entire regeneration bill, and to get the powers-that-be working on greater concessions. and maybe, just maybe, lammy's out there working on it right now. but i'm more inclined to suspect that it's all more simple than that ... that lammy's still sulking, and it's a rare instance of levy saying something that actally can be taken at face value.


... they both make me taste bile.

fellas. expanding the lane was approved years ago. and the (revised) NDP planning application was unanimously approved by haringey council's planning committee back in september. each option got the bureaucratic green light ... the very meaning of which is that expanding can be done, and that 60k is tenable.

how much, exactly, has the economic climate changed since the first of last october, when, in response to the planning committee's approval, levy said:

"Clearly we are delighted with this unanimous decision and are grateful to all those who expressed such clear support for the plans."


it's kind of bizarre. when levy trotted out the NDP, and i kept saying "geez, i'm not convinced all this is even 'do'able - let alone the best thing for the club", most folks here's response was "levy know's his accounting, man. if he says spurs can swing it, i'm confident spurs can swing it." in other words, it's tenable ... it's feasable ... it can be done.

but then, when nothing has changed*, save a financially better (but ultimately failed) option in stratford and daniel levy's rhetoric, suddenly it's "untenable", "not feasible", and "can't be done". now, i don't know which is right, but they can't both be.

it's been suggested that i've taken some media comments too literally, and i guess i can't really deny it, as i don't know which ones. but, conversely, do you fellas really find daniel levy's comments to be reflections of truth as much as reflections of his ambitions and mere attempts to persuade?

that's a serious question, by the way, and i don't mean to belittle anyone who answers in the affirmative. obviously, i won't agree, but i'm sure we're already reconciled to the fact that we're not likley to get consensus on this.


*unless, which i suppose is possible, the council made increased demands via a section 106 agreement. but i've heard nothing of it, and doubt that's the case, as i know they hadn't through mid-december when spurs submitted a bid on the olympic site, and it would seem an unlikely response on the heels of that news. at any rate, if such is the case, please share the details.

they would have maintained much of the infrastructure, so while most of what you'd see would've been different, a great deal of the preparation for building 'what you see' (which is considerable) would have already been done. no official projections were released, but it was suggested that it could've saved the club between 150-200m. i have no idea whether that's accurate or not, but i'd be willing to bet the olypmic would've been significantly cheaper; and in purely financial terms, i'm sure it made sense.

as to west ham fans, i'm not concerned a jot as to how much they hate us ... but i do care as to how much we deserve to be hated. and moving to east london would have merited contempt, in my honest. it was certainly a plan for which i held contempt - though i'm not sure anyone could tell.

at any rate, i certainly agree with your premise about ours running around east london. can you imagine trying to establish spurs locals there? suppose yids would get much aggro in their own manor (if you'll excuse the phraseology)? i know the 80s are behind us, and all, but that'd just be asking for grief, wouldn't it?