Community Share Proposal for the NDP
Friday, July 22, 2011 at 11:02AM Look out for more comprehensive detail on this later on today on the Spurs Future website. Included here is a high level overview of what is being proposed.
If you're unfamiliar with Spurs Future, they're a group of supporters who wish to make a positive contribution towards the club, specifically birthed out of all the drama and confusion the OS bid and the non-viable nature of the NDP undertook during that rather draining time last season.
End goal is for them (us) to see a top drawer stadium built within Tottenham and hopefully on the site proposed for the NDP. Obviously something we're all in support of as the perfect conclusion to this difficult journey. They're in discussions with both the club and local government so the natural progression from the initial fan survey they conducted was to reach a point beyond the shrugs of despondency many of us got lost in whilst emotions run high.
Not so much to find a soultion (that's the club's responsbility) but rather a supportive hand and gesture of goodwill to aid Levy and co in what boils down to matters of a fiscal nature. Can I be emotive? It's our club we all have a right to be involved in it's future.
So where exactly are Spurs Future proposing?
The mission statement is as follows:
"In light of the club's concerns about the financial viability of the Northumberland Development Project ('NDP') and it not being awarded preferred bidder status for the Olympic Stadium, we, the supporters of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club, wish to assist the club by Proposing a Community Share/Investment opportunity to aid development of a World Class football stadium worthy of the club and its ambition in our current home, Tottenham"
If you're unaware of what exactly a community share is, it's a way of raising money from within the community through the sale of shares or bonds to finance (in this case the NDP) an enterprise that serves the community. This is not a brand spanking new idea by any means, it's one that has proven to be successful in recent years in cases where community investment has helped finance community initiatives.
Can investors get their money back? Yes. They can also receive interest or dividends on any money invested. So how will this work exactly for Spurs? Spurs Future are looking to define the community share in terms of investment in the following way:
"The sale, or offer for sale, of up to £50,000,000 of shares or bonds to a community of at least 2500 people, to finance ventures serving a community purpose"
The definition used is not too dissimilar to the one in place at FC United of Manchester (on a far smaller scale compared to what is being proposed for the NDP). Spurs Future have used their share model as a blueprint to push the same ethos across to all involved (with the potential for alternatives very much present and up for discussion).
The proposal currently is as follows:
- 250,000 shares valued at £200 per share
- Minimum investment, 1 share (£200)
- Maximum investment 100 shares (£20,000)
- No withdrawals in first 3 years of investment (as defined by the "start" date of construction)
- No interest payments in first 3 years of investment
- Maximum withdrawal in any one calendar year is 10% following 3 year investment
- Potential interest payments up to 2% above base rate from year 4
In addition there's potential for further investment opportunities based on this offering (relating to local council grants and Football Foundation funds).
The small print includes investors having to be One Hotspur members (at any level) and 16 years of age or older to hold a share. The reason Spurs Future have asked for One Hotspur as a pre-requisite is to secure the investment more so from the THFC Community rather than fly by night profiteers. It keeps with the ethos of all of us playing our parts in supporting our clubs future.
There's some other details concerning interest on investment, voting rights, risks, tax benefits, details on capital funding shares etc that will included in the pdf version to be made available later on this afternoon.
It's a positive step, it's pragmatic and constructive and I look forward with interest to see how the club respond to this.
http://www.spursfuture.org/
@SpursFuture
The Fighting Cock is a brand new THFC podcast that you'll be able to stream or download here on DML (make sure you have a Quicktime plug-in installed) or subscribe to on iTunes.
Love the Shirt.
Flav, tehTrunk, Spooky
It's coming soon...
Reader Comments (30)
It's a great initiative and I applaud you for looking for constructive ways to support the club and their quest for a new stadium. My only concern is that the current NDP isn't viable because of the stance being taken by the council in their attempt to squeeze every last £ out of Spurs, rather than supporting them in the way Arsenal were supported and West Ham are being supported.
I'm completely behind the Chairman in the way he's been handling this so far. I'd seriously consider investing in the way you suggest but I want that investment to go towards to development of the club, not to absolve the council of their responsibilities to their only real asset in the area and to the community they are there to serve.
I've weight it up......
and just as Duncan said as he ejaculated his load with Deborah Meaden screaming like a Syrian protester....
I'm in.
@bjspurs: "...the current NDP isn't viable because of the stance being taken by the council in their attempt to squeeze every last £ out of Spurs..."
This is simply not true: what are you basing this on? The council have done everything possible to help Spurs, whereas Levy has simply played games with the fans, the govt., the GLA, the Olympic company etc.
The council accelerated the planning permission and have made the minimum Section 106 requirements of the club, but have been let down by Levy's intransigence and too-clever-by-half attempts to get money out of the government (which he has openly stated is his aim). The idea that the council are squeezing money out of Spurs is an ill-informed myth, which is literally the opposite way round!
I'm all in favour of the SpursFuture proposal in principle, but how does this model fit with the fact that Spurs is a plc? How can we actually get any democratic control over the club while it's owned by an offshore speculator who can sell it to anyone, whenever he chooses?
@dc: This is simply not true: what are you basing this on?
I'm just a supporter who reads these blogs and draws his own conclusion from the posts. So, do I believe you or do I believe the other view..?? This is the problem. It would be a fool who invests any money in something without facts and as it's unlikely we'll ever know the full story, I wonder how much interest you'll really get...
Although Daniel Levy is a Spurs supporter and would do his utmost for the club to ensure success, he is also a businessman and must have his eye on 'cashing in his chips' one day. It would pain me very much if investors had a chance of making a modest profit out of any investment, whereas Lewis and Levy could destroy any modest profit, by playing hardball with an incoming purchaser. I have no doubt whatsoever he and especially Joe Lewis are money oriented enough to be turning THFC into an attractive product that will sell, making a very large profit for themselves and no one else.
@cookiebun
I would be fine with them making a large profit as long as they leave a legacy of a completed NDP and a team with top, top players that qualify for the Champions League more often than not, i.e., they leave the team with a solid base.
I agree with dc, the council has tried to be helpful. Assuming that the bureaucrats are out to shaft the club is lazy and untrue. They know only too well the value of the club to the area.
As for the share, it sound great in principle but I'd need to know my money wasn't just helping Enic get richer.
Levy would prefer you to buy tickets in the new Lilywhite Lounge I think.
This seems aimed at the type of money people may need to spend to get premium seats at a new ground, I will be interested to see what the uptake is and if it grows to other parts of the ground next year.
At £1600.00 cheaper than the next "executive membership", to me it's an indicator things are happening behind the scenes, alongside the survey that went out recently.
Great news, The NDP is looking more and more likely to go ahead. I want a season ticket yesterday. Can anyone tell me if the ongoing appeal against the Olympic comitee,s preferred bid will have any weight in convincing the government to award us money from the regional growth fund? That's the impression I get, can anyone with more knowledge of the state of play confirm this please ?
Good post, dc.
Haringey Council is an all too easy target for the ill-informed.
As you quite rightly say, for a project the size of the NDP, planning permission was given relatively quickly with no indication from Levy that the project in its amended state had become 'unviable'. No formal requests for financial assistance were made by Levy because the OS bid, with the backing of AEG, had clearly become plan A; asking for backing for the NDP at that stage would have been seen as less than 100% commitment to the bid. The NDP was 'dead in the water'. The OS was, apparently, our only option, and to quote Daniel Levy,'99% of the fans back the bid'.
By purposely making the OS the only option, it gave the Stratfordites and the ill-informed an enemy; a direction to the point the finger at, and to blame for forcing us out of Tottenham and into Stratford.
Could Haringey/the Government have offered financial assistance without being asked? Why would they when they believed everything was moving along swimmingly, and why would they offer money to someone who had so quickly dropped the NDP to join up with AEG in a bid to move to the OS after they were told the NDP had become 'unviable'? 'Leverage' was the word being banded around at the time, still is. Levy, of course, had no real intention of trying to move the club to Stratford. It was all a massive game of poker intended to twist the arm of those who could offer help. I'm no sociologist , but when you need help, financial or other, isn't a good idea to at least ask politely before trying to push someone into a corner?
The OS bid was not only a massive stitch up and an epic fail, not to mention a complete embarrassment to Levy in front of his big AEG buddies, but it has also been a total waste of time, money, goodwill and a PR disaster.
Levy is quite rightly trying to recoup the money wasted in the bidding process, but to believe this all some part of a grand 'Machiavellian master plan' that was conceived months ago in order to blackmail the government into funding a new stadium that will make the owners an extra £30m a season is risible.
The idea of getting the fans to find £50m when they can barely afford their season tickets is also half baked, not to mention the nightmare of trying to separate and float £50m worth of stadium on the stock market from the club's worth as a whole. I'm sure it's all been dreamt up with the right intentions in mind, but it all sounds a bit Blue Peteresque.
Having been involved a little in this proposal, it is just that at the moment, an opening proposal
My personal view is that if Spurs, and other clubs, do not start along these lines soon the fans will have no actual reason to be fans, or as with our season unable to go. One 3PM kick off on a Saturday until Christmas this season, you think they give a fuck about fans?
A scheme like this at least gives a full voice to be heard in a formal manner, something that is required if we are to have a football club in years to come.
It is a positive start, let's see where it goes.
What a fucking brilliant idea. Sign me up for one of them (I can't afford any more). With all of the tens of thousands of fans on the season ticket waiting list (like my good self) so desperate for a larger capacity, it is a grand initiative to get the fans to help. I was also quite intrigues by the idea of the Legacy Bond idea over on Harry Hotspur.
With the club appearing to push on and make the NDP a viable option, it is very encouraging to see a lot of fans brining good ideas to the table to help get things going and for work to begin. It is obvious that the club will not be able to fund this on their own so it is up to us, as fans, to assist and play our part in seeing our club progress and achieve.
@ Daveyid
FACT:
The only info I have on this, is that the Minister for Sport (forget his name) has publicly encouraged Spurs to back down in their attempts to bring the OPLC to a judicial review or whatever is.
OPINION:
Interestingly, Spurs persistence with this matter could potentialy aid the request for funds or damage it.
a) With government getting so much negative news recently, Spurs could benefit from their appeal in that the government will award THFC money to effectivley 'shut them up' and stop a can of worms being opened in terms of our bid for the OS being hopeless from the outset. OPINION.
b) The government rejects our judicial review, saying they believe all WHUFC actions to be legitimate and (kind of) hold a grudge against THFC and their request for funding for bringing the OPLC in to disrepute.
Hope this makes some sense. None of this is fact of course but both scenarios aren't unrealistic.
Diaz,
You're are exactly right. The NDP will be made viable mostly through prepaid, long term 'executive season tickets' and 'VIP' hospitality, which will destroy the atmosphere at the ground, but guarantee ENIC the maximum return when they do eventually sell.
Thanks Danielbolden
Great site with quality articles and posts, it's refreshing. Keep up the good work.
@dc
"This is simply not true: what are you basing this on? The council have done everything possible to help Spurs, whereas Levy has simply played games with the fans, the govt., the GLA, the Olympic company etc. "
Well actually this simply is not true. The Council have conceded nothing in this planning negotiation. All their requirements with regards to transport, education, affordable housing, building heritage (to name the biggest issues) are as per their policy requirement. They have not relaxed anything in granting consent.
They only thing that they did do to help us out is expedite the whole process. usually a scheme like this would take years to get through planning. Although it still took months and months it was effectively fast tracked.
As part of negotiating a planning consent, where an applicant is looking to off load their requirement to meet certain policies/make certain contributions, you have to make a very compelling planning case to justify relaxation of policy. In the case of THFC the case is over whelming, as the benefits of THFC staying at WHL/Harigey is massive. However, The Council's case would have probably been "well your at WHL if we don't grant consent you will remain at WHL so no need to relax policy!"
What the OS saga has done is demonstrate to Haringey that we could potentially up and leave so, Local Authority, help us out!
Levy is not playing games, he is a serious player. While his ultimate aim may have been to get the OS his fall back is that our willingness to look out of the Borough puts pressure on the Borough to help the scheme stack up.
Levy is not messing any one around. We applied for the OS and missed out. We are challenging it because we are not happy with the process. Its fair enough. We invested a lot in to that process and deserve answers.
As for the fans, Levy cannot make his tactics public knowledge otherwise he undermines his negotiiating position. If he surveyed the fans he would probably have quite a strong opposition againts the OS. This would not support our tactis, whatever angle we are coming from. I would suggest that the OPLC/Govt/GLA are the ones playing games with us with regards to the OS bid. Levy may not have been 100% open with the fans BUT he cannot be so when mid-negotiation.
TMWNN.......You are such a miserable git!
The stadium is costing 100s of millions because it is designed to maximise the atmosphere. It is closer to the pitch than Emirates, City of Man, Wembley (all the new stadia). It has a Kop single tier home end.
While I am not convinved you are a Spurs fan (never heard you say anything positive about the club) maybe I am wrong and maybe you follow them to the ends of the earth....in which case you may have been to stadiums like the Sunderlands & Boro's. These are bog stadard, off the peg designs which give a decent stadium at a decent cost. Atmosphere is ok, appearance is plain and cost minimum.......Sunderland built theirs for £15m in 1997 (42000 seater) and expanded it to 49000 for another £8m. Now thats a long time ago so maybe prices have doubled or trippled since BUT is is not a world class facility, it does not look to maximise the atmosphere or the hospitality, but it does fit in 49000 if it has to and they are an ok distance from the pitch.
THFC could follow such a route re: design. If ENIC were simply looking to maximise value at minimum cost then they would follow such a route.
2 facts for you.....hospitality & corporate brings in massive revenues in to the big clubs. It is essential if you want us to compete. Most of WHU adaption of the OS will be to provide boxes because that revenue stream, especially for a big club, is key! You would criticise Levy & Co if they failed to meet the demand for this Corp. stuff and igniore potentially massive income streams.
secondly, the deign of the NDP is atmosphere lead. They want to create a world class facility and maintain the famous atmosphere of the WHL. WHile it may be impossible, they are doing their best and it comes at great cost!
I understand you hate Levy, but your unrelenting prejudice clouds your judgement! We are one of the best run clubs in the land, competing financilly at a much higher level than the likes of Villa/Everton who are of similar size to us. We match LFC. The reason why we have millions to spend every summer and everton have nothing is down to how we are run.
pull your head in!
"The Council have conceded nothing in this planning negotiation. All their requirements with regards to transport, education, affordable housing, building heritage (to name the biggest issues) are as per their policy requirement. They have not relaxed anything in granting consent."
Transport. Transport for London have nothing to do with Haringey Council.
Affordable Housing. CABE restricted, nothing to do with HC.
Building Heritage. English Heritage has nothing to do with HC.
Education. What about it?
Completely ill-informed.
@daniel
re: your (b). That sort of reasoning for rejecting our applic for funding is exactly what we are appealing against re: the OS.....ie a decision influenced by irrelevant criteria (policital or public opinion)
"THFC could follow such a route re: design. If ENIC were simply looking to maximise value at minimum cost then they would follow such a route."
Wrong. Not enough money would be made from a stadium where 'VIPs' won't go.
"secondly, the deign of the NDP is atmosphere lead. They want to create a world class facility and maintain the famous atmosphere of the WHL. WHile it may be impossible, they are doing their best and it comes at great cost!"
Wrong. The design of the NDP is led by maximum match day revenue and return on a future sale. I'm sure the scum's shiny brochure contained the same cheap talk about atmosphere.
"I understand you hate Levy, but your unrelenting prejudice clouds your judgement! We are one of the best run clubs in the land, competing financilly at a much higher level than the likes of Villa/Everton who are of similar size to us. We match LFC. The reason why we have millions to spend every summer and everton have nothing is down to how we are run."
Wrong. I don't hate Levy, but I don't trust him. He's done a sensible job where others have gone crazy. I draw the line at trying to move the club to Stratford without exploring all the available options first. It would be easy for me to say that your 'win at all cost' mentality, and naivety is clouding your judgement.
Transport. Transport for London have nothing to do with Haringey Council.
Affordable Housing. CABE restricted, nothing to do with HC.
Building Heritage. English Heritage has nothing to do with HC.
Education. What about it?
Completely ill-informed.
- - - -- - - -
Dude, don't embarrass yourself!
If you knew anything about the process (i do because I work in Planning & Development) then you would know that if HC were on board with THFC then they would not have to apply their Policy strictly. They have. To the letter.
They could, for example, agree to the scheme providing 100% private housing instead of what is probably at least 40% affordable (which adds little value/profit to the scheme). CABE are nothing to do with it, they advise architectural aspects. their comments led to a redesign of the hosuing which resulted in many units being dropped from the scheme.
The Heritage consultation responses required us to maintian 3 old buildings, which contributed to the loss of about 1/3 of the housing to accommodate it and added to the costs of development and added costs through major redesign. Other Heritage buildings are being lost but these three are to be maintined in isolation....the Council are required to consider the Hertiage response but do not have to follow it, if such a stance can be justified. They chose to enforce it.
The problem would be to convince the Mayor/GLA of any relaxed policy and this is where HC let Spurs down because they stuck strickly to policy requirements and were not prepared to fight for us.
Education - any residential building yields children. A big scheme will generate lots . developers have to contribute to education provision and make contributions which equates to about £6k-10k per child. A scheme of this size will generate 100s of children and thus contributions will likely be in the 100s of thousands, probably +£1m.
What I am not aware of is if THFC made any viability arguement at the time of the application. I would be surprised if they didn't. Overall, HC did not bend over backwards to help us, they simply applied their policy without relaxation.
TMWNN
Your logic is f*~ked-up.
You think Levy/ENIC wants a big stadium, to maximise Corp & hospitality to the detriment of the atmosphere, so they can max revenues and sell for a big profit. Following that through, to maximise value Spurs would have to have massive income streams and good growth potential. Now massive income streams would mean that Spurs would have more money to spend on players & wages. To have growth potential we need to be doing better than we are now so we can charge more, be in the CL and get that revenue, and attract bigger sponsors....now is that a bad thing.....your argument is YES IT IS if it comes at the cost of atmosphere.
You would prefer a big stadium with less corp/hospitality where the atmosphere is the first and only real consideration....this would lead to LESS INCOME (compared to above), less money for players and wages,less potential for growth, and despite having the same size stadioum as the likes of Arsenal & LFC, not able to compete with them financially....as we know, money is King so if we cannot compete financially we will struggle to compete on the pitch.
Look at our stadium design.....close to the pitch, kop end, far more tight and compact than Emirates etc Such a design approach costs money, way more than a more simple design approach (a simple bowl could easily accommodate as much hospitality).
You think Levy/ENIC wants a big stadium, to maximise Corp & hospitality to the detriment of the atmosphere, so they can max revenues and sell for a big profit.
Yes.
You would prefer a big stadium with less corp/hospitality where the atmosphere is the first and only real consideration....
Yes, but it's not going to happen for the exact reasons you've stated, and the atmosphere will be affected as I said. I don't see why you have problem with this logic.
Whether your knowledge of planning and development in a village in Devonshire has any relevance to London, and, if any, is true, is neither here nor there. The plan was agreed to by both parties. I thought Levy was Mr Negotiator; it's a bit late to complain after the deal has been signed.
my problem with your logic this:
1. It would be impossible to maintain the amazing WHL atmosphere in a bigger stadium. BUT Spurs' design is atmosphere-lead otherwise we would be replicating Emirtates. This was all made clear at the outset, way before the OS reared its ugly head.
2. The provision of corp/hosp areas does not come at the cost of atmosphre unless they dominate the stadium. We will still have the 36k that make the current atmos, plus probably a further 50% again (18k) from the ST waiting list plus maybe another 6k for hospitality. Look at the mock up pictures. A mini-tier on 3 sides providing corp areas but the rest, the vast majoity, is normal seating. The corp is excluded from the kop end so it will be awall of noise (unless its the paxton lot then it will be a wall of groaning!).
3. You've seen the prices for the corporate lot. its 1000s. Each seat earns 10 to 20 timesthe amount of income compared to a ST in the Park Lane. Look at the corp again in the pics. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-sport/football/article-23801816-tottenham-need-to-think-again-over-new-stadium.do It probably amounts to no more than 10% of the stadium. Even if it is 10000 (15%) then there is still 50,000 spurs fans in the house, 15000 more than currently. If the corp is earning 5 times a seat more than a regular seat then the 10000 corp income = 50000 regular seats, in terms of income. SO the corp brings in as much income as the other seats.
SO, look at the design AGAIN. tell me how its design and the hosp. areas are adversely affecting design and tell me we can do without it because we don't need the money,. You want us to spend £300-£400m on a stadium and want to forego massive potential income streams...the costs will all be the same, the S.106, the rates, the build, it iwll all be the same!
The design is a great balance of meeting the needs of the regualr fan and the necessary evil that is corporate hospitality. If you want to do away with the hospitality bit then you fail to understand simple economics and modern football. Your demands are unrealisetic, unviable, unsustainable and unnecessary.
As deomstrated, doing away with say 5000 corp would be like doing away with 20,000 regular seats in terms of income.....so in that case, why bother with a bigger stadium???
Answers please!
And for your information, I work and live in London and have a season ticket in the Park Lane (the cheap seats!) and have done for many years. I have pumped more than my fair share of money in to THFC.
FFS! Are you completely thick or what?
To compete with the top 4 we'll have to have corporate "fans'" money in a 60,000 seat stadium, I understand this, I'm not stupid. Doesn't mean I have to like it.
Football in the top flight is as good as finished, and killing off the very thing that made it so addictive and exciting in the first place just so long as we can 'compete' is okay with some people, but not with others. Can you understand that some people will not follow like sheep, where others will?
Laughable that this site has the front to run this.
This is the WE ARE N17 (no no more of course) HQ.
No thanks.
Supported the ethos behind We are N17, much like the people who set up Spurs Future did in that nobody wanted out of N17 until the club proved the NDP was not viable. You do get that right? Spurs Future being a natural progression from N17? An organisation with a far clearer manifesto? Do you even know what happened? Probably not. Easier to point a finger and claim bullshit.
My position has never changed. Never wanted to leave. Hey and guess what? We're not at the moment, are we? Looks like I got what I wanted. Without the need of a bedsheet.
So please do get a grip. There are pro-Stratford blogs/sites that are also behind Spurs Future, so not sure what your point is exactly? Are they okay to fleet in and out of ambiguity then settle for the best course of action?
Ta.
Only thing laughable is how the people who dismissed any fight for questions to be answered at the time of the OS bid are now happily supporting the NDP when everyone knew we'd never even win the bid so why turn your back on 'shit hole' Tottenham in the first place?
Martin Cloake was very much pro-NDP which is what Spooky was and what We are N17 should have been before they got carried away with the postcode and drowned out by other factions of support that half heartily demonstrated.
Not sure what his point is actually.
Wanted the NDP. We didn't get Stratford. We're back fighting for the NDP. Spurs Future stand for that.
?
It's the notion that if you were against Stratford, that it's somehow your fault that others haven't got a season ticket or that you're responsible for holding the club back that gets me.
As though fans from either club (WHU or us), pro or anti-Stratford, had a say in who it was awarded to.
Levy should never have got involved in it and was very badly advised.