The Official Tottenham Hotspur Thread [Vol 7]

[TEKNOPUG]

Surely in business, the minimum amount is the right amount? Why on Earth would you pay more for something if you didn't have to

[selym]

TEKNOPUG said:

Surely in business, the minimum amount is the right amount? Why on Earth would you pay more for something if you didn't have to

The minimum amount, as agreed by the two parties...I agree.

[deadmau5]

TEKNOPUG said:

Why on Earth would you pay more for something if you didn't have to

Sometimes it's required when you want to get st done.

[im]

TEKNOPUG said:

Surely in business, the minimum amount is the right amount? Why on Earth would you pay more for something if you didn't have to

In Liverpool this is actually rocket science.

[im]

deadmau5 said:

TEKNOPUG said:

Why on Earth would you pay more for something if you didn't have to

Sometimes it's required when you want to get st done.

But in this instance it's not yet required

[selym]

I really don't undertand why the company should be forced to sell under a CPO for a fking football stadium. It isn't as if the government requires the land for anything that could be beneficial to the country.

[deadmau5]

im said:

deadmau5 said:

TEKNOPUG said:

Why on Earth would you pay more for something if you didn't have to

Sometimes it's required when you want to get st done.

But in this instance it's not yet required

I wasn't referring to the Spurs/Liverpool examples, it was a generic statement.

[Black can man]

[redacted]

[TEKNOPUG]

deadmau5 said:

TEKNOPUG said:

Why on Earth would you pay more for something if you didn't have to

Sometimes it's required when you want to get st done.

So the minimum amount is the required amount; it's the minimum that has to be paid in order to achieve the desired requirements.

What your suggesting sounds like paying more than is required - which sounds like bad business to me.

[im]

selym said:

I really don't undertand why the company should be forced to sell under a CPO for a fking football stadium. It isn't as if the government requires the land for anything that could be beneficial to the country.

You have to look at the bigger 'regeneration-of-a-blighted-area' picture.

If Tottenham Hotspur FC look elsewhere for a new home then many jobs and business will evaporate and the area as a whole will spiral even further down the plug whole.

One single medium-sized company cannot be allowed to stand in the way of the greater good for a whole district.

[deadmau5]

TEKNOPUG said:

deadmau5 said:

TEKNOPUG said:

Why on Earth would you pay more for something if you didn't have to

Sometimes it's required when you want to get st done.

So the minimum amount is the required amount; it's the minimum that has to be paid in order to achieve the desired requirements.

What your suggesting sounds like paying more than is required - which sounds like bad business to me.

Look at Liverpool in the transfer market for example. We go after players, offering the absolute minimum amount we could get a player for but and keep missing out because another club is willing to pay £1-2m more. Without the other clubs coming in we probably would have got them in the end.

[TEKNOPUG]

selym said:

I really don't undertand why the company should be forced to sell under a CPO for a fking football stadium. It isn't as if the government requires the land for anything that could be beneficial to the country.

I'd be amazed if you could find any football stadium built in a residential area in the last 20 years that didn't require numerous CPO's. Certainly Ashburton Grove did, which is the most comparable example.

There is also the small matter of many millions of pounds of government money to regenerate one of the poorest boroughs in the country, that hinges on Spurs building a new stadium.

I suggest that you do some more reading.

[selym]

im said:

selym said:

I really don't undertand why the company should be forced to sell under a CPO for a fking football stadium. It isn't as if the government requires the land for anything that could be beneficial to the country.

You have to look at the bigger 'regeneration-of-a-blighted-area' picture.

If Tottenham Hotspur FC look elsewhere for a new home then many jobs and business will evaporate and the area as a whole will spiral even further down the plug whole.

One single medium-sized company cannot be allowed to stand in the way of the greater good for a whole district.

It wasn't always that way, now the Urban Geurilla Force have their teeth in it has given carte blanche to financially disadvantage a smaller company or property owner. Owning property is no longer a safe financial bet; it can be whipped away at discounted cost to service 'the greater good'.

I'd wager that the metalsmiths are well out of pocket come Pickles' decision. The percieved threat that Spurs would have to move away from the area is just leverage, in this case more than sufficient leverage.

This isn't a moan about Tottenham by the way, the system just stinks in this regard.

[selym]

TEKNOPUG said:

I'd be amazed if you could find any football stadium built in a residential area in the last 20 years that didn't require numerous CPO's. Certainly Ashburton Grove did, which is the most comparable example.

There is also the small matter of many millions of pounds of government money to regenerate one of the poorest boroughs in the country, that hinges on Spurs building a new stadium.

I suggest that you do some more reading.

As I said, this isn't about Tottenham, more about the system. Standard PH response that foots your comment though.

[jammy_basturd]

TEKNOPUG said:

Surely in business, the minimum amount is the right amount? Why on Earth would you pay more for something if you didn't have to

THFC (or ENIC) have not yet offered the minimum amount. Otherwise you'd already be building a new stadium.

[jammy_basturd]

im said:

deadmau5 said:

I know for certain that Mr. Levy would be paying well over the odds for the houses if Spurs faced a similar predicament.

In offering what he has so far they've gone beyond what is the norm.

A committee will decide on the level of compo.

Still, at least its the millionaire owners of Spurs jousting with the millionaire family-owners of Archway.

Not the might of the Fenway Group against a handfull of working class familys.

Genuine question, are ENIC offering to buy both Archway's land/premises and provide them with new land. Or are they only offering to provide new land for a new factory?

[TEKNOPUG]

deadmau5 said:

Look at Liverpool in the transfer market for example. We go after players, offering the absolute minimum amount we could get a player for but and keep missing out because another club is willing to pay £1-2m more. Without the other clubs coming in we probably would have got them in the end.

If clubs weren't accepting your bids, it's because they were BELOW the minimum amount.

[TEKNOPUG]

jammy_basturd said:

THFC (or ENIC) have not yet offered the minimum amount. Otherwise you'd already be building a new stadium.

I never said that they had.

[CIE560]

im said:

You have to look at the bigger 'regeneration-of-a-blighted-area' picture.

Eh? In the glorious south?

No way.

[TEKNOPUG]

selym said:

As I said, this isn't about Tottenham, more about the system. Standard PH response that foots your comment though.

It's only the standard response as your initial post suggested that you were not aware of all the facts and I was too lazy to link relevant subject matter. No offence intended.