How You Will Fund Tottenham’s New Stadium – And Why

Taxpayers are part funding the redevelopment in N17



How You Will Fund Tottenham’s New Stadium – And Why

Should tax dodger Joe Lewis should pay for this instead of us?


So it looks like Tottenham Hotspur have been granted their wish. Their application for public funding to make the Northumberland Park Development Project a reality has been accepted by the powers that be. Spurs have agreed a £27 million funding agreement, which will include £18 million directly from Mayor Boris Johnson’s £50 million fund, put together in the wake of the riots in order to regenerate affected areas. Of Boris’s overall budget, £20 million has come directly from central government to be invested specifically in the Tottenham and Croydon areas as a result of their being the worst affected by the riots of last August. What this figure will include will be £6 million invested via Haringey Council in highways and parking improvements, and a district-wide heating and power scheme, with the remainder focusing on public transport and infrastructure improvements. A further £9 million will also come from the coffers of Haringey Council ‘towards new and improved public spaces, heritage work and environmental improvements in North Tottenham’.

Doesn’t that sound fair on the face of it? After all, won’t the local population – among the poorest of the great metropolis – benefit from improved infrastructure, transport and public spaces? Well, the fact of the matter is that those amenities would have needed to have been provided anyway if a new stadium had been built by Tottenham Hotspur in the area, under what is known as a ‘Section 106 Agreement’. In essence, local planning authorities come to an agreement over monies paid by developers to offset the costs of the external effects of their development. If we take as a hypothetical example a developer that wanted to build 200 new houses in any given area, there would be obvious effects on local schools, roads etc. which the Local Authority would have to deal with. Often, in that situation, there will be a s106 agreement as part of the granting of planning permission – for example, the developer might agree to make a contribution towards the provision of new schools to deal with the increased number of pupils brought in by the development. Tottenham Hotspur, therefore, would have had to foot the bill for developments such as infrastructure and transport improvements if they had wanted to build their significantly-larger new stadium in the Haringey area.

However, as stated here by a local newspaper, the Tottenham & Wood Green Journal - ‘It is thought the money (provided by the public purse) would effectively subsidise Spurs’ compulsory payments to the council to carry out infrastructure and other improvements in the area; Haringey paying Spurs a lump sum, only for Spurs to pay it straight back to them.’ The BBC News website, in an article back in September, also reiterates this point, stating that Haringey Council had ‘agreed to scale down a list of community projects it wanted Tottenham to contribute to, saving the club a further £8.5m’. The amount that Tottenham Hotspur has been asked to contribute by Haringey Council as a s106 agreement amounts to £17 million, which is roughly around 3% of the overall development costs of the Northumberland Park Development plan. This is a comparatively low figure in comparison with other s106 agreements made in relation to similar developments – particularly the Ashburton Grove development, where Arsenal paid £60 million alone for a new state-of-the-art waste-recycling centre at Lough Road, and also included £7.6 million to upgrade local transport links, as well as a sum to provide affordable housing and the relocation of 83 businesses from the former Ashburton Grove Industrial Estate. As stated at the time by Islington Council leader Steve Hitchins, Arsenal was required to pay ‘the highest proportion of s106 improvements compared to the size of development, in any scheme in the country’.

In contrast, despite the relatively low figure asked of Spurs, it seems it had done little to please them during their negotiations with the GLA. A close source quoted by the London Evening Standard stated that - ‘There is an extremely generous deal on the table. This is a sizeable chunk of public money. We cannot understand why the club is dragging its feet if it claims to be committed to the area’. When I initially wrote an article on this subject back in July, in response to Spurs’ initial application for public funds, there was a deluge of responses from Spurs fans avidly asserting that Arsenal had received public funds for building Ashburton Grove. However, as can be seen here in a statement from Tottenham MP David Lammy - ‘No public money was given to Arsenal at any point over the building and development process. This is quite clear in a letter sent from the Chief Executive of Islington Council to my colleague Jeremy Corbyn, the MP for Islington North.’ The source of misinformation to the contrary is clearly identifiable – various quotes made by Spurs CEO, Daniel Levy, on the subject. In referring to Spurs’ application for planning permission, Levy states that ‘the application also includes S106 costs in the region of £17m, relating to requests for contributions from Council departments and Transport for London as part of the planning consent. Meanwhile this development has not attracted a penny of public money… this is in contrast to the stadia developments of 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.’

However, regardless of who received public funding and who didn’t, surely Tottenham Hotspur are very much needed in the borough of Haringey at such a time of economic woe? Well yes, they very much are. Tottenham has the highest unemployment rate in London and the eighth-highest in the UK as a whole. The Haringey Independent also stated in June 2011 - ‘Figures show that in Tottenham, there are just 121 registered vacancies, with more than 6,000 people looking for work – meaning there are 54 people looking for every job’. 80% of the entire borough’s unemployed reside in the Northumberland Park Ward where White Hart Lane is situated; in fact it has the highest unemployment rate of all of London’s 634 council wards. The largest employer in the borough is Haringey Council, who have had 23% in annual cuts imposed upon them by central government, meaning that one in five council workers faces redundancy. Tottenham Hotspur are the largest Private Sector employer in the Borough, and probably the highest contributor of business rates too. As with most football clubs, there are also numerous smaller businesses that are reliant on the income that match day brings and that will subsequently go to the wall should Tottenham up sticks and leave the area.

The essence behind Tottenham Hotspur’s bid for public funding, however, is the use of Machiavellian tactics to achieve their ends, such as their disingenuous concern for the plight of the natives who are, in reality, merely a human shield against criticism aimed at Spurs for laying claim to money from the diminished public purse to achieve their financial ends. As the link between the Northumberland Park Development Project and the creation of long-term employment for the locals is a tenuous one at best (in reality, it can justifiably be compared with enticing a starving dog with a rubber bone), it can be said that Spurs are deliberately playing on the fear of the dire consequences that would be inflicted upon the local populus should Tottenham Hotspur not get their own way and leave the borough. After all, Tottenham Hotspur were merely asked for £17 million to contribute to the extra strain they will put upon resources in Haringey should their project be given the green light. Seeing that, in the transfer window before last, Chelsea had bid £40 million for Luka Modric, £17 million is a figure they could easily have stumped up.

Also, in an era of diminished public funds, what needs to be taken into account is the degree to which the needs of the population of North Tottenham are any more pressing than that of other parts of the metropolis also greatly affected by both the double-dip recession and the riots of last August. London Mayor Boris Johnson has taken a sudden interest in investing in the transport infrastructure of North Tottenham; however, on his arrival at City Hall nearly four years ago, he made a bonfire of many transport projects, claiming them to be commercially-unviable in the wake of the credit crunch. Two such projects in areas hit by the riots included an extension of the Croydon Tramlink and a cross-river tram from Peckham to Camden. Others in areas of long term decline with chronic under-employment include the extension of the DLR to Dagenham Dock and the Thames Gateway Bridge from Beckton to Thamesmead. In mitigation, Boris (who ironically resides in Highbury Fields, and can often be seen jogging through the area) stated that - ‘What we want to do is stop pretending the tooth fairy will come. Some of the plans we just don't have the money for and the others were never very good ideas anyway’. Why so hard-nosed on ideas such as these to regenerate run down areas of the metropolis, but so accommodating of others?

Well, Tottenham Hotspur is 4% owned by Lord Ashcroft who is open that his involvement is for investment purposes only – though allegedly not quite so open in other areas regarding his finances. In the same week that Spurs came to an agreement with City Hall on public funding, Panorama highlighted the alleged undeclared links between Lord Ashcroft and a bankrupt construction company in the Caribbean tax-haven of the Turks and Caicos Islands. Ashcroft is not only a Conservative Party donor, but also the largest donor in British political history. Ultimately then, no great surprise that a Tory mayor was so forthcoming with providing public funds for a project that includes upgrading transport links and that would ultimately enrich the party’s very own ‘tooth fairy’, serial tax-dodger Lord Ashcroft.

In my last article on this subject, I had also raised the issue of who effectively owned Tottenham Hotspur and the degree of their contribution to the public purse – i.e. ENIC, Joe Lewis and his non-domicile tax-exile status. I had this point in response, among others, from a Spurs fan within the comments section - ‘I am afraid you are not properly informed regarding Joe Lewis. He effectively has nothing to do with the club. One arm of his business (ENIC) has majority shares in the club, headed by Mr Levy. It's a PLC, or hadn't you noticed that?’ However, Joe Lewis’s involvement in the day-to-day running of Tottenham Hotspur is neither here nor there. The main beneficiary from ENIC selling their 85% share of the club will be tax-dodging banker, Joe Lewis. And believe me - once the ground is completed, Tottenham Hotspur will be sold on for great profit - at a value inflated by taxpayers’ funds that will ultimately enrich those with very broad financial shoulders, hiding away in a Caribbean tax-haven, who carry nothing of the financial burden that we are supposedly ‘all in together’. And, ultimately, it is they and not the beleaguered underclass of Haringey who will benefit from allowing Tottenham Hotspur public funds to build their new stadium. Register your displeasure now, before it’s too late.


NEW! Subscribe to our weekly Gooner Fanzine newsletter for all the latest news, views, and videos from the intelligent voice of Arsenal supporters since 1987.

Please note that we will not share your email address with any 3rd parties.


Article Rating

Leave a comment

Sign-in with your Online Gooner forum login to add your comment. If you do not have a login register here.

68
comments

  1. Robert Exley

    Feb 15, 2012, 12:14 #18644

    Oh, and Davy D - Tottenham Hale: 'a stadium that is virtually unused for fans coming into/out of matches at THFC'. Assuming you meant to say a station virtually unused - Tottenham Hale not used as an interchange by Spurs fans from the Harlow area then?

  2. Robert Exley

    Feb 15, 2012, 0:02 #18642

    I see we're still getting a lot of Spurs fans here - didn't know the Online Gooner was so popular with THFC fans! Nice to see that - not only on a day when backtracking on their previous agreement for £16m for the community because it is 'unviable' they're trying to entice Eden Hazard with a £20m plus bid - they've also dropped their plans for affordable housing provision for key workers in the borough of Haringey. Spurs are also planning to acquire CPOs to demolish private housing to build a grandiose 'Wembley Way' style walkway between their new ground and White Hart Lane station. THFC proud of their roots? Got a funny way of showing it!

  3. Noe

    Feb 14, 2012, 20:42 #18639

    Sorry but speaking as an Arsenal fan, this just all seems a touch bitter. Let them have their stadium. Ours is already built and raking it in. They are still years away from playing there.

  4. Spurs's best boss since 1961 hasn't won them a single trophy

    Feb 14, 2012, 18:39 #18637

    'You have also seen from the plans that it will be a far better stadium than the Emirates.... with it being practically right on top of the existing WHL' ... is that seriously supposed to be a good thing? Revolting place infested with vile, angry people who talk through their noses and bully women and children when the numbers are in their favour.

  5. Davy D

    Feb 14, 2012, 17:12 #18631

    Hmmmm - lots of poorly thought out points to pick out here. For a start you couldn't even get the right picture in for the design of the new stadium and surrounding development.... The one you have is about 3 planning applications old. Secondly - you talk about Arsenal having to pay £60 million to build a new recycling centre, but fail to mention that this was only neccessary because the land that you wanted for the new stadium already had a rubbish dump located there! Tottenham do not have to spend £60 million resiting a rubbish dump because the land that we have bought for our new stadium does not contain one. I also see that you talk about Arsenal not receiving public money for the Emirates, but do not consider the fact that Arsenal relied heavily on CPOs being served by the local government on a large number of businesses that sat on your new site. There was a huge amount of resistance to those CPOs and the valuations for the businesses were well under market rate (especially considering that much of the land was then converted to residential to allow building an enabling development that you have been receiving a huge amount of income from over the past couple of years). In contrast with this Spurs who have not yet required a single CPO and have privately aquired just about all of the land and property on the NDP site (with just one single property remaining to be purchased). The state help that you received in being able to serve those CPOs (without it going to public enquiry I might add, and that would've been very costly for you) will amount to FAR more than the £16 million reduction in section 106 costs that THFC have recently experienced. In that way you received a huge amount more public assistance than the £16 million THFC no longer have to find. You also have little idea of some of the things that the original £16 million section 106 costs included..... Things that could only be described as Harringey council trying to do all they could to maximise their own gain from Spurs trying to expand their stadium and bring some increased employment and hope to the area. For example £3.5 million of improvements to Tottenham Hale Station (a stadium that is virtually unused for fans coming into/out of matches at THFC). However the Tottenham Hale area is marked for private/public partnership development (TfL and Harringey trying to get THFC to pay for their scheme do you think?) Also £3 million contribution towards "Heritage Building Improvements". Money to restore victorian buildings surrounding the site to their former splendour (THFC wanted to just pull them down). As for having a go at Spurs' ownership.... Firstly I think you need to go and research what a 'non-domicile tax-exile' actually is. Secondly if having an overseas owner presents you with such an issue then surely you would be better off taking a look at your own American/Russian majority owners? It's clear to see that your big problem here is that you can see that Spurs are now very close to starting building their new stadium. You have also seen from the plans that it will be a far better stadium than the Emirates.... with it being practically right on top of the existing WHL, having seats closer to the pitch than the Emirates, steeper banked stands and a single tier end behind the goal to help ensure an Emirates Library atmosphere doesn't happen. So overall I must commend you on your petition, after all it's great evidence of an extremely worried gooner :oD

  6. Danny

    Feb 14, 2012, 15:08 #18624

    Only basing this on memory, but, Did arsenal not fund their project largely by selling off profitable residential space in a fashionable part of london? If so the projects are not really comparable are they? I say this because the government (previous and present) has always stepped in to support regeneration work in impoverished areas. Be it significant decontamination work on old industrial land (something Arsenal may have benefited from actually), transport investment or a contract as a cornerstone tennant in a major new development - the public purse quite rightly supports regeneration in deprived areas. So why would the public purse not look to generate investment in Tottenham? That you happen not to like one of the companies involved in the project is hardly relevent. Sainsbury (assuming they open the supermarket) will benefit too. And so will a construction company that builds the stuff. And that's sort of the point. Creating conditions where companies can make money and so generate jobs and a better economic environment for the area as a whole. That a football club happens to be leading this project is just not relevent.

  7. SouthCoastArsenal

    Feb 12, 2012, 20:23 #18545

    Being born in Enfield, I have an opinion - Bollocks to Tottenham, I hope they disappear & never come back

  8. Rocky RIP

    Feb 12, 2012, 18:16 #18540

    Benny B - so it all boils down to us being jealous of Sp*rs, does it? Hilarious. Please remind me exactly what it is we are to be jealous of. Only that lot could celebrate being 3rd like it was genuine success. I repeat: 3rd. We are currently 4th. Ofcourse we'd swap points tallies right now, but that really is it. They are above us for once in their lives and suddenly we are jealous. Fair play to 'arry for a 'triffic job' but his trophy haul is one solitary FA Cup. ie. he's won diddly squat at Sp*rs. Where do you want to begin with league titles, 50 years and counting, etc. We've clinched the title more times at WHL than they have. Arsenal have their problems right now, but jealous of Sp*rs? Because they want to build a stadium and take on a lot of debt? Because they are 3rd? What is it exactly we'd love to swap with them? I'm confused.

  9. Bee Gee

    Feb 11, 2012, 16:03 #18504

    The redevelopment of White Hart Lane with public money (if that is to be the case) is an appalling waste of public funds and unfair to any football club that has arranged and taken responsibility for its own home imrovement fundings. Further I believed that private businesses were not supposed to receive public money / subsidy under European and fair competition laws.

  10. Colin Kelly

    Feb 11, 2012, 15:44 #18503

    Tax payers should not be contributing to spurs getting a shiny new stadium,they should use their own money like every other club

  11. Rocky RIP

    Feb 10, 2012, 22:51 #18489

    This debate confirms 2 points we all knew already. 1. Online Gooner is infested with To**enham fans spreading their vile opinions, pretending to be Arsenal fans in an attempt to spread negativity and bring us down from within. 2. They love re-writing history. They've ACTUALLY convinced themselves that Arsenal had public money to build The Grove. Check your facts. Very good article. Why should the taxpayer fund an upgrade of that revolting cesspit? Rotten club, full of swindlers, used car salesmen who need a shave and the angriest fans in existence.

  12. Ron

    Feb 10, 2012, 16:01 #18484

    Good luck to Tottenham. They know their value to that poor area and so does the Council. Its not their fault that Arsenal couldnt squeeze so good a deal. Cant see why Arsenal fans are interested anyway. Im not.

  13. Graham Simons

    Feb 10, 2012, 13:49 #18481

    As others have said no public money will be given to Tottenham to build this stadium - the money will be spent on infrastructure. Furthermore, Tottenham, like Liverpool, have been banging on about a new stadium for years and done nothing about it - I'm pretty sure it will never be built and even if it is built it will put them so far behind us it will be ridiculous as we're much further down the line repaying the debt on our stadium and their fans won't stand for that. And thirdly this is an Arsenal site - what the hell does this have to do with us?

  14. Robert Exley

    Feb 10, 2012, 13:11 #18479

    Rich Smith - yes you're right, there are more important things in life than football. SUCH AS HOW PUBLIC FINANCES ARE SPENT FFS! Football and football rivalry is very much a foot note in this article and this whole argument. Are a mutli-million pound enterprise entitled to extort money from diminished public funds - No, they're ****ing not!

  15. mad max

    Feb 10, 2012, 11:51 #18476

    i echo what terry says when you consider how far we were ahead of the spuds, how the incomptence of the board and the mad frenchman have let it come to this is unforgivable.there,s not enough arsenal men inside the club.where as spuds are full of ex tottenham people who have got the passion and nous to run a football club

  16. Gman

    Feb 10, 2012, 11:05 #18474

    As much as I dislike the idea of any PLC getting their noses in the trough of public funds and the article is very illuminating, good luck to them, perhaps we should have played the ‘We are going to leave the borough’ card a bit more to screw Islington council for more money. If you want to apply the Schadenfreude approach then they, as always, will be 15 years behind us by the time their stadium is up and running, by this time we will feel comfortable enough in our home and we should be back winning trophies??? Not many teams who move their home have had much success, except Man City, and the council owns their ground. You would be wiser getting all Gooners to boycott Asda/Wal-mart and starting a campaign to get the clown Kroenke out of our club.

  17. Rich Smith

    Feb 10, 2012, 9:55 #18473

    I'm an Arsenal fan and I think the Arsenal, and Tottenham fans that are bickering about this need to get some perspective. There are more important things in life than football. Nobody on here knows all the facts so how can anyone categorically say what is happening, and, whether it is right or wrong?

  18. Terry

    Feb 10, 2012, 9:27 #18472

    Seriously arsenal fans need to worry about what's happening at our own club rather than petitioning that lot down the road. We are In danger of becoming the 3rd club in London thanks to our board and it's business model. How our club has let that lot creap up and now over take us from the position we were in is an absolute scandal. 14 years of cl money, 60 k attendance.massive income from player sales and now we could be behind them for years. Arsenal fans really need to wake up to the reality of what's happening at the club and stop worrying about that lot down the road.

  19. Inspector Clouless

    Feb 10, 2012, 9:13 #18471

    good luck to spurs. smart dealings in the transfer market (VDV, Ade, Parker, Friedel), not selling Modric and having a MANAGEMENT TEAM of Jordon/Bond/Allen/Rednapp Snr/Jnr/Tim Sherwood/Les Ferdinand. Much better than the LOUIS XIV CONTROL FREAK MASSIVE ego we have presiding over the Arsenal these days

  20. Robert Exley

    Feb 10, 2012, 8:39 #18470

    Tony - I really need to get a life? You're trolling on another club's fansite, I don't think you're in any position to lecture others on constructive use of their spare time The S106 payments Spurs have been ask to contribute is not a wishlist but a figure to cover the extra strain on the public purse from a venture Spurs will primarily reap from

  21. fozzy's mate

    Feb 10, 2012, 8:08 #18468

    I enjoyed the research material but as someone who brought up very close to the lane and spent a large part of my youth around there, I feel the area is in desperate need of regeneration. It could always be described as "lively" but shortly before the riots I went to meet my brother there (convenient on way home) and was stunned what it had become. Sure Levy and co care nothing for the community like Kronke and Hillwood care nothing for the Finsbury Park and Highbury area. But if spurs left the area my god what would it end up like, even more "lively" than it now is. Life is bigger than football. Joe public must be better than parasites like Lord Ashcroft and Joe Lewis. If the many in their position paid a fraction of the taxes due we would not be in such a state. I would rather see public funds put towards this sort of project than into the pocket of the dough trouserers that I detest.

  22. ed enough

    Feb 10, 2012, 6:11 #18467

    Top job Rob.....you have really managed to get under the skin of a few muggy spuds with your article....always good to see!

  23. James

    Feb 10, 2012, 4:04 #18466

    It does not matter anyway, Tottenham won't be able to finance the deal...

  24. Joe S.

    Feb 09, 2012, 23:34 #18462

    Agree with Paul F. My jealousy lies in the fact that Spurs are better managed from park to board than we are and thus have the momentum to make it appear that they are detined to do bigger things whilst at Arsenal the business is in a smugly compacent mode.Which business model would you put your money in if you were an investor.

  25. Idiots

    Feb 09, 2012, 23:27 #18461

    For a moment just consider that Tottenham is both an area in London and a football club. I know this is hard for you, as Arsenal is nothing more than a football club (and a train station). The funds are for regenerating the area, wich is one of the poorest in the UK, not to pay Gareth Bales wages, nor for seats in the stadium. Consider for a moment that the petition that Arsenal fans have started out of spite for the Tottenham football team, could actually end up effecting some of the poorest citizens in the uk, many of whom support Arsenal? Idiots....

  26. Joe Fitzpatrick

    Feb 09, 2012, 23:21 #18460

    Nice article Robert. Its disgusting that Tottenham are getting this preferencial treatment and hiding behind Robin hood tales when all they care about is their business model. We should all protest this as much as we can as I dont fancy paying for their new Stadium!! Scum.

  27. tony

    Feb 09, 2012, 23:17 #18458

    Firstly S106 is not intended to be a wishlist for projects you're not prepared to do yourself.Many of the costs heaped on Spurs should have been undertaken by various levels of Govt years ago. Levy has got them to rescind some of their wishlist, no money has gone to Spurs. Secondly Spurs are spending £150m to regenerate the area, it was not unreasonable therefore for Spurs to ask Govt to at least show some commitment themselves. It's not a very dignified posture blackmailing Spurs to stay at WHL, whilst putting out the begging bowl to Spurs with the other hand. Third Spurs make more donations to local charities than any other football club, including keeping local youths off the streets by running over 30 artificial pitches and coaches for the community. Fourth Arsenal received considerable support with finding Ashburton Grove and then piling on pressure with compulsory purchases for many viable local businesses. Many of these businesses felt they did not receive adequate compensation, and were bullied on Arsenals behalf. You really need to get a life.

  28. simon c

    Feb 09, 2012, 22:53 #18457

    Hi, great article. A couple of minor points though. It is not comparable to compare the arsenal s106 bill with the spud's because arsenal's project was different. For example. The cost of the waste centre was essentially part of the deal to secure the land in that there was a centre on Ashburton. Therefore, no relocation equals no land to build a stadium. Further the affordable housing requirement was unrelated to the new stadium. It was related to the building of housing has part of the overall project. However, this should not detract from the actual point of the argument which is a private company benefiting from public subsidy to allow a scheme to come forward which is struggling to be viable.

  29. Andrew

    Feb 09, 2012, 22:50 #18456

    You know what, Tottenham area is a dump, who cares!

  30. maguiresbridge gooner

    Feb 09, 2012, 22:48 #18455

    An even better second piece Robert well said at least their new ground with our plans might stop myself and other arsenal fans getting pelted with an open plastic bottle half full of p**s.

  31. vonMelonkampf

    Feb 09, 2012, 22:42 #18454

    Think I might go on a Spurs website to see what they're saying about us. Then again, maybe not. That would be sad.

  32. maguiresbridge gooner

    Feb 09, 2012, 22:11 #18453

    Great piece Robert judging by the picture above of the stadium and surrounding area there's something odd something familiar could somebody at arsenal check the boardroom safe and make sure the emirates plans haven't been nicked have they no imagination of their own.

  33. Terry

    Feb 09, 2012, 21:43 #18452

    I'm an arsenal fan. And all I can see is that spurs have been very clever in the way they have done this. If arsenal didn't get funding and spurs do, who's gives a toss. All it means is their board have out smarted us off and on the pitch now. The fact that we are run buy a bunch of money grabbing un ambitious incompetents is our look out.

  34. Robert Exley

    Feb 09, 2012, 20:54 #18451

    Ah well - few points to answer here. Firstly, it looks like one community project THFC seem to still be committed to is giving cut price season tickets to people from Enfield afflicted with a single digit IQ (don't think for a moment any of these idiots actually come from Tottenham, there is no visible presence of Spurs fans in Haringey other than on a matchday). Despite actually providing you tangible evidence that proves Arsenal never received one penny from the taxpayer to build Ashburton Grove, this site is still full of Spurs drones claiming the opposite with no evidence to the contrary. Secondly, for those of either side of the divide who claim to care one iota for the Haringey human shield...sorry population, here's a few stats for you to mull over - Haringey were forced to close 8 of it's 13 Youth Clubs last July (on the eve of the riots!), four care homes, day centres for the elderly and making redundant one in five council workers. On a national level, unlike the Germans, we cannot offer our young free higher education or EMA. But thankfully there's £17m to find for necessities like giving money to a football club owned by a tax dodging banker, who in order to pay their s106 payments may have had to sell Modric for £40million and would only have a miserly £23m left over to buy an adequate replacement! I also find some of the comments by so-called Arsenal fans pretty spineless to the point that if someone burgled their house and stole their plasma TV, they'd probably say 'oh well, they're just trying to get the best deal for a TV and we did leave the door unlocked. I would report it, but it smacks of sour grapes and they'd probably say I was jealous because he has a plasma screen and I dont'. Also, anyone who doubts I can write a fair and balanced opinion on the North London rivalry, simply google my name, North London Derby and Adebayor. Makes me laugh some of you want to taunt Adebayor over a shooting because he's supposedly greedy and might score a goal against us, but sanguine when someone who owns Tottenham and doesn't contribute a penny to the public purse wants £17m out of our pockets. Bunch of Sheep in wolves clothing if ever there was!

  35. win AFC

    Feb 09, 2012, 17:33 #18446

    The spuds will get carried away with there new look stadium oh sorry i mean space ship, Lets face it they will have to THANK ALL ARSENAL FANS who help fund.

  36. clockendpaul

    Feb 09, 2012, 17:26 #18445

    As ive said before we are slowly changing places with that lot up the road, your artical just makes you and us sound like the twisted bitter whingers that they used to be. That is probably going to be wengers legacy, leaving us in a worse position than he found it, unbelieveable!

  37. Shropshire Lad

    Feb 09, 2012, 17:11 #18444

    Dissapointed (I am also a Gooner from Enfield. Fortunately my Aunt lived at Highbury and saw my first match there rather than WHL) and Oxymoron - spot on. It just proves what we know - our Board are inept and the Spuds Board know the modern business world. Don't know why we are worried. It will be good to get back to excellent rivalry and not the sad beating up of them for the last 15 years. This season is cathartic for them, they hope, but with the Artful Dodger moving on not sure they can sustain it and we know better than most what a drain on everything a new ground can be. The only other point that perplexes me is why do Spud fans read Arsenal Blogs? I would never dream of reading other clubs blogs as no interest whatsoever. Now that tells you far more about their current mental state than this 'tit for tat' about 3% funding!!

  38. Ant

    Feb 09, 2012, 16:49 #18443

    As West ham got approx 50 million for their campaign to take over the olympic park stadium from their borough and Spurs didn't, I don't think anyone's got the right to argue about the funds received from the mayor.

  39. Skooner

    Feb 09, 2012, 16:47 #18442

    Surely those of you (both Arsenal and Spurs fans) saying it’s about regenerating the area or not are missing the point. The author isn’t saying they shouldn’t regenerate, it’s just about who pays for that regeneration, Spurs or the public purse. Assuming the new stadiums is built, the regeneration WILL happen. It appears that Spurs are likely to get a better deal than Arsenal did, but I’m sure our board were pushing equally as hard to get any concessions they could (and there is still the outstanding issue of the redevelopment of Holloway Road tube station). I’ve also never understood how we managed to get the compulsory purchasing orders through either, this is virtually unheard of for a private business and suggest severe pressure on the powers that be from the club. Ultimately from a rivalry point of view, I hope they do rebuild. The tightening of their belts for the medium term combined with the likely departure of Arry means they are very likely to lose momentum that they currently have. Yes it should be a good move for them in the long run, but as we are seeing at the moment it’s not a guarantee of kicking on. Arsenal built their new stadium at the right time i.e. before the financial fair play comes into force. Even if Spurs mortgage repayments aren’t part of the UEFA calculations, the money has to come from somewhere so unless their owners want to continue to underwrite the bill for a long time it will heavily impact their spending power.

  40. Covoteapot

    Feb 09, 2012, 15:56 #18438

    Ha ha! Love the Scum comments. 1 season in 15 that they are currently above us in the league. One swallow a summer doesn't make my Scum friends... Redknapp will leave and you're flash in the pan season will be a figment of your over fertile imaginations...

  41. RJ

    Feb 09, 2012, 15:26 #18437

    I have always wanted to write this on a post, but thought it would be disrespectful - but in this case it is appropriate: Dan Mac, TommyHarmer, Benny B, etc - Why don't you f*** off down the Lane. To be honest, once 'Arry goes to England, Spuds will fall apart. Let them have a 60k seater - it will give the 30k who turn up two seats each to put their fat Spuds a***s on. Come on you Gooners!

  42. Romford Pele

    Feb 09, 2012, 15:03 #18436

    Im an Arsenal supporter. On this subject, who cares? Its now a totally different economic environment and different part of London although its only a few miles away. Spurs are trying to get the best deal they can just as we did. Didnt we threaten to go off to Wembley or the M25? Focus should be directed on our board. Why didnt they get better deals for naming rights and shirt sponsorship? Why havent we only just started to exploit the Asian markets? Its laughable complaining about Spurs getting a better deal when thats our problem not theirs.

  43. PerryG

    Feb 09, 2012, 14:41 #18434

    Alot of spud fans on this site, id never dream of looking at their websites although i once received an email from a mate telling me that they have Costa del Sol cup winners 196?'s in their roll of honours! I did have a sneaky peak and yes its true!! I suppose when your obsessed as much as they are with the more successful and illustrious neighbours, that you will stalk them whatever way you can. From buying all our rejects, or players we have been linked with, to practically copying our stadium design. We will always be their benchmark, but they will always be in our shadow

  44. Highbury Gooner

    Feb 09, 2012, 14:39 #18433

    Good article but not really relevant to Arsenal fans now although the extra help they would receive would not exactly be "Fair" - never mind, it is all politics! We built the Emirates Stadium the hard way and at the cost of sacrificing the sqaud and success - but when you see the stadium it REALLY is worth it!! Yes the deals were not perfect but they will be up for renewal in 20132014 and with the current debt at £98 million and millions of Pounds of Queensland Road property to be sold next year our debt will be wiped out within two years -Arsenal will progress as the strategy originally envisaged although the billionairs have changed the goal posts. From what I am hearing, once this has been achieved the only way to compete with CityChelsea then will be to expand the stadium as 60,000 is moderately sized in many peoples opinion (Including Arsene Wenger if you can find the article when he states it should be at least 100,000) There are still 41,000 members on the waiting list and as a massively supported club we can fill a huge stadium realistically. Lastly Gooners, be proud of our history! Invincible season, Unbeaten 49 run, 13 titles, 3 doubles, 10 FA Cups, Emirates etc and I bet the spuds would kill for that!

  45. Nick

    Feb 09, 2012, 14:30 #18432

    I really hope they get a new ground, because i doubt very much that they will have the money left over to invest in their team, and the beat case scenario would be, that they went the way of nearly every other club after building a new stadium ,and get relegated

  46. Paul S

    Feb 09, 2012, 14:14 #18429

    What a lot of bickering going on here! So much uninformed rubbish spouted from both sides. Its a good article Rob but loses its way at the end with a diatribe at Lord Ashcroft/Joe Lewis who is no worse than Kroenke or Usmanov in my view. Tottenham needs Spurs in the area for many reasons. That Daniel Levy uses this need to help with the stadium development funding process is smart business and quite laudable in many ways but people do have the right to object to it as public money is involved. The chief difference between the projects is that Arsenal had Highbury as an asset and a favourable funding climate (even then it was touch and go) whereas Spurs are trying to develop their ground in a more hostile funding climate. Getting some public funding is one thing for Spurs but it's a small fraction of the overall funding that needs to come from all sources and I fear the banks may not be so accomodating for a while yet. One bridge possibly crossed, many more bigger ones to go. Oh and by the way Arsenal will still be the bigger club!

  47. Julesv82

    Feb 09, 2012, 14:12 #18428

    Writer of this article needs to get a hobby. Supporting Arsenal does not mean sabotaging Spurs. We all joke about it, but we dont do it. The Northumberland Development Project will recieve public funds to reinvigorate the transport links and help renovate the buildings around the project which are listed. Arguably it is not Spurs' responsibility to upgrade the transport links around the stadium. Arguably it is the councils responsibilty. Therefore the council giving Spurs money to help upgrade the transport is entirely valid. In addition, the letter to David Lammy states that Arsenal were not given public funds that would constitute 'state aid'. That does not mean that they were not given public money. Rather that the donation of money could not constitute state aid and could not be considered illegal. If writer considers the money being given to Spurs to be illegal then he should make a formal complaint. If not he should shut up. And besides everyone knows Arsenal are only in the top division sue to illegal bending of the rules. Take a chill pill mate.

  48. Dissapointed gooner

    Feb 09, 2012, 13:45 #18427

    I am an Arsenal fan who grew up in Enfield (moved away now). I know the area around WHL pretty well. This is an interesting article but you miss the point and I'm afraid that it comes across as sour grapes (as some others have written). You cannot compare the situation of Arsenal's new stadium and Spurs' without sounding petty and fixing your arguement to fit your already well-formed conclusion. The most important part of football is the fans and the fans around the Tottenham area have lived, in many caes, on the poverty line for years. As stated, I am an Arsenal fan but I am a human being first and foremost. I hope that Tottenham help to regenerate the area and bring some wealth back to that particular part of North London. If that also makes them a bigger and better club then I welcome the challenge: bring it on.

  49. tpm

    Feb 09, 2012, 13:04 #18424

    Boris you buffoon, arsnal had no public money as declared spurs fan david lammy stated!! improved transport would not be required were it not for the presence of your club, and how will building a new stadium help education? the provision of new schools etc are entirely not linked with the need for a new stadium. rico spur, the article may be because he's an arsenal fan, but its all true. why should tottenham get a discounted stadium. its pathetic and o so typical of the club and those who run it and follow it. using regeneration as a gambit to get their greedy mits on public money when they should be made to go it alone like other clubs have to. simply a classless club, who despite the current malise will forever be in our shadow. football stadiums do not lead to regeneration, studies have proven this, if the new stadium is built, the status quo remains, few new jobs, just those that already exist and rely on the club remianing, any gentrification will in no way help the local populace, merely entice the wealthier in pushing those currently there to the fringes, not solving there deprived status. Regeneration and investment would occur in time, spurs are demanding it as they are seeing it as a cheap way of getting there stadium by piggybacking on it.

  50. danalovAFCXI

    Feb 09, 2012, 12:59 #18423

    Can we stick to our club please. As some of these spuds have smugly pointed out it smacks of bitterness. Still its not as if the our dust bowl did us any favours when we moved is it. let em move.

  51. bob

    Feb 09, 2012, 12:49 #18422

    This article is of course written from an Arsenal point of view (we have our new ground, now let's try to stop Spurs getting theirs). Who can forget the many displaced small businesses that were sacrificed to get the Arsenal stadium built? Also, if rocks are to be thrown at the Spurs ownership for their domicile, are we sure that the Arsenal ownership is totally within Britain and pays British taxes? No of course we are not. The raw facts are that Spurs were held to ransom by Haringey over the original stadium plan and they had to remind the authorities that there were other choices (Olympic Stadium, Lee Valley etc.). Now the authorities have realised this, they have taken a much more conciliatory tone. If Spurs Chairman Levy negotaties a better deal than his Arsenal opposite number, then good for him.

  52. The Bagel

    Feb 09, 2012, 12:38 #18421

    You've obviously written and researched some very good information for this article but it really does read like sour grapes. So arsenal didn't get as much help paying for the Emirates. Well, the fact of the matter is that Islington don't need arsenal like Haringey needs Spurs and that's it really. S106 orders are just as much an excuse for councils to extort money from businesses in the name of necessary improvements as Tottenham's threats to leave the borough were an excuse to drive the price down. Had arsenal, or any club, been in the same position, I'm sure it would have done its best to leverage whatever it had to keep costs as manageable as possible. That's what businesses do. Your facts are straight but painting them to suit a picture of Tottenham screwing over the local community is pretty wide of the mark. I can understand someone living in, say, the North East not being hugely chuffed that their tax is helping out with this but then there is Governmental money far worse spent than this scheme. Like that it benefits Spurs or not, it will be positive for the public. The fact of that matter is that are some real, actual, funding injustices out there. If you could devote the same efforts towards campaigns for sorting those out as you have shown in this piece, then that really might make an important difference. The Bagel.

  53. CJ

    Feb 09, 2012, 12:35 #18420

    Jealosus are we?? Did Arsenal not recieve public funding and help regenerating local transport when building the Emirates?? That will be half empty in a few years with no CL football!!

  54. James

    Feb 09, 2012, 12:35 #18419

    as an arsenal fan who lives close to the supds ground the truth is the area would die if they moved and they know that so from a business point of veiw (which football is these days) of course they are driveing a hard bargin its just good business for them just. wish we had stood furm when it came to our place

  55. Tristan

    Feb 09, 2012, 12:34 #18417

    Once 'arry leaves for england then modric, bale and vdv will leave. That should leave us enough money to build it!!

  56. Oxy-Moron

    Feb 09, 2012, 12:31 #18416

    As much as this makes gooners choke, the key difference between our development and that of "them" should be remembered - Our board was clearly swayed by the pound-notes that would come from the redevelopment of highbury; the Spuds are redeveloping their existing ground for footballing reasons, not short-term profits. Thus the move from Highbury is exposed even more for what it was, and it's nothing to do with building a football team.

  57. Dazran

    Feb 09, 2012, 12:23 #18415

    Erm are you forgetting the compulsory purchase orders that the government help with when the emirates was built or was it £100 million loan from the government,where did that money come from. Sounds like you forgotten these for the purpose of slagging spurs off, oh how goner memories are short. Your time has been and gone, now it's someone else's turn you can't handle it sour grapes me thinks.

  58. Paul F

    Feb 09, 2012, 12:21 #18414

    It is no doubt true that Levy is good at getting his own way. The Stratford posturing must go down in history as one of the best bluffs of all time. Every football club should have a Levy. Arsenal used to have one (David Dein). Not any more. I think one does have to distinguish between justifiable and unjustifiable use of public money. North Tottenham - in contrast to the Ashburton Grove area - has suffered from under-investment from the public sector for decades. A clear example is the lack of transport. Local residends have for years asked TFL to make the investments required to open a Victoria Line station at the Northumberland Park depot in North Tottenham. They have refused on the basis that some of the land required is owned by National Rail. Only in Britain could this be considered a valid excuse - one State owned enterprise owning something that another state owned enterprise needs! Of course it is bunkum - they refuse as the area has already been written off (at least until the riots started). Likewise no pressure has ever been applied on train or bus operators to improve services, low cost rapid urban transport systems such as a tram link to Seven Sisters have been rejected with equal disdain. The area is dead on its feet. Which is why sweeteners are required. Its basic market forces. Ask yourself this: why would THFC invest there, without sweeteners? Arsenal chose to build its stadium in an area that had benefitted from decades of public sector investment in things like transport. 2 tube lines, significant redevelopment of the Finsbury Park transport hub etc. There is no reason why the council needed to sweeten the deal. Infact, a shopping centre could easily have been built on Ashburton Grove - it would have cost less, employed far more people and generated infinitely greater tax revenues than having a football club. Do you really think the same could be said for North Tottenham? I frankly dont agree with your point that a £20m public subsidy for a £300m development will increase the value of THFC one iota. If that £20m isnt offered, THFC will simply build somewhere else. Its that simple. Whether the stadium is in Tottenham, Enfield, Barnet or even Stratford will not make a difference to the club's value. Finally, for the sake of accuracy, Joe Lewis does not have 'non dom' status (by which I assume you mean res non dom, the scurge of the Daily Mail reader). Lewis is non resident in the UK. I'm not sure why anyone would think that this makes Lewis a tax dodger. Why should he pay tax in the UK when he isnt resident here?

  59. ricospur

    Feb 09, 2012, 12:05 #18413

    your opinion is nothing to do with the fact your a gooner then?

  60. Boris

    Feb 09, 2012, 12:04 #18412

    What a shambles this article is. You are really going to rival regeneration in an area just because of football rivalry? You have no conscience Robert Exley. Arsenal could be sold at any time. Since the stadium has been, they have been sold to American investors. Have you noticed all the money ploughed in to the Ashburton area to improve trade and transport? Are your children not benefiting from the money that was spent from the public purse? Why would you possibly want to halt regeneration, education and improved transport in an area that has gone deprived for years? Let us not forget a vast amount of private money will also go to improve that area too.

  61. Peter Wain

    Feb 09, 2012, 11:59 #18411

    So typical of that club. They have no class or shame what so ever.

  62. Royston

    Feb 09, 2012, 11:57 #18410

    Rob, brilliantly written, articulate, well researched and insightful. I'm an Arsenal Fan and grew up in Edmonton/Tottenham and you're absolutely right Tottenham as a Football club but more importantly as a PLC don't give two ****s about the people there. The public funding is a massive smoke screen to generate new revenue for free. Great read

  63. the man from delmonte

    Feb 09, 2012, 11:51 #18409

    unfortunately a petition from one club will not curb the will of one boris johnson.

  64. Benny B

    Feb 09, 2012, 11:50 #18408

    Could of saved a lot of time and thought by cutting it down to one word "Jealousy" What's the points difference now ?

  65. Craig Grant

    Feb 09, 2012, 11:49 #18407

    You could have saved yourself a lot of time by just writing 'i'm terrified that our glorious rivals have now overtaken us on the pitch and are looking like they're going to over take us off the pitch too. Please sign this petition and help me in my bitter quest to halt their progress.'

  66. TommyHarmer

    Feb 09, 2012, 11:47 #18406

    WTF has it got to do with you South Londoners???? WE didn't squeal when you developed your ground with lots of handouts ..... tell me: are you feeling a bit SCARED. After all, we're ahead of you now even without the big ground!!

  67. andy

    Feb 09, 2012, 11:46 #18405

    Arsenal had funds for developing the area around their stadium!!!

  68. Dan Mac

    Feb 09, 2012, 11:44 #18404

    I can't be botheresd to read the article because I'm at work... so apologies if i've completely missed the point. I just wanted to point out a couple of things about the funding and accept this may be irrelevant, but looking at the tone (i read a bit) I think this is worth mentioning. Firstly, the reasonc we have public money is to upgrade transport links, they aren't giving the monoey to THFC, they have simply agreed to spend that amount on the area. Basically, the barea is a sh1thole, no doubt about it, the transport links are awful yet they are basically begging the club to remain there, so, we have made the simple request that you don't rely solely on THFC to do your job and regenerate this place, you have to back it as well, improve your trains so it can hold 60k on a match day - fair enough if you ask me. Also, and a much simpler point (although I admit, I may be mising the point here in the same way i believe you have entirely missed the point in your article) - I'm sure you receieved public funding for your move?