What is Tottenham Hotspur?

Just when I thought I was out...they pull me back in. This Stratford saga is never ending.

I posted the below over in the thread 'The East End itch Levy can't quite scratch...' at The Fighting Cock forum. I've made some amends to it for this blog. Promised myself I wouldn't got back to discussing this, but then it's one of those subjects that fragments us (an already fragmented fanbase).

Be sure to join in the discussion.

What is Tottenham Hotspur?

Its difficult to talk about this question because you can sit and attempt to quantify what constitutes emotional detachment and what defines a club and what it means in practicality for hours and still not get anywhere when attempting to use said arguments in relation to a potential move away from N17.

So what is Tottenham? Is it the fans? The area? Do you define a club by its traditions and if so, what are traditions? Style of play, memories of games? Players? Celebrations? Infamous away trips? Hatred for other clubs? The Lane? The journey into the Lane? So much goes into constructing the DNA of a supporter and club. I think its all of the above, all mashed together in a sexy gooey kinda way.

Football is emotive, so surely it should be based on emotions?

What? Oh yeah, PLC. I need to remember to get a tattoo of that on my back.

If we moved down the road, say to another part of North London, there would be a transitional period for all of us attempting to move on from the fact we've left WHL. It happens in life when you leave a job, split up with your partner or someone dies. You think its all gone and it wont be the same again, its all changed, but you adapt and you end up embracing the present and look towards the future.

No matter where we play, you could argue, Spurs exist because they exist in our heads and in our minds. If there were no Spurs fans they'd be no club. Now before I drown in deeply philosophical musings that I'm struggling to articulate because I'm sober...what I'm saying is, I do get that history DOES count and everything this club has achieved will not suddenly disappear because we've shifted home.

Or will it? Will people look back on it with some degree of detachment? Will it matter if that happens when I hit the grand old age of 70 and new young football fans don't much care for whatever happened back in the days of HD and 3D tv, what with their 'Watch the game with retina-cam' via your fav player with Holographic TV™.

I wasn't alive in the 1960s yet that side, those players, they feel and belong to me as much as any player or team I have watched in the modern era.

Spurs won the double in 61. Eight FA Cups. Trophies in Europe. I could name 50 flair players off the top of my head that made their mark for our club. These are the things we can't lose because what has happened can never be changed, but the clubs actual physical persona, its character and its appearance will forever morph into something completely different. And why? Because at that (this) moment in time Stratford was more affordable and feasible than N17.

Revenue, 60K + attendances, new supporters, corporate hospitality to die for, transport links made in heaven...all this has nothing to do with what happens on the pitch when Spurs play. I'm talking in the purest sense here. If it takes another 10 years to get the NDP sorted I'd rather wait then spend another 100 years in N17 than to uproot and move to another part of London just because it's a more fiscal do-able option in the short term.

I get its a business. I get shareholders and investment. But that doesn't mean I should conform. Tottenham (like many clubs) have copyrighted everything to do with the club. Brand. Tottenham the brand. You want use the THFC club badge on your blog because you're a fan? Sorry, no chance. Pay Spurs first for the privilege. Or be sued. Why? Because you can't be making money off the Tottenham brand. That's modern football. If I'm in the minority that wish to hold onto the last surviving romantic notions, then so be it.

Why the mad rush and the opportunistic short cut with the OS bid? Football might well implode in the next 10 years, we don't know. The mad rush is because of those shareholders and their demand for it. They invested money. You can't argue against their argument. But again, why should that concern me?

I guess football has moved on and I'm refusing to move with it.

Billionaires are buying up clubs left right and centre and changing the competition and the landscape of competitiveness. Again, I'd rather be this plucky team on the outside punching our way in. And if we get in, and we enjoy a cycle of success and then lose that cycle. So be it. That's football. Not everyone has that honour of silverware. Nobody is at the top forever. We've not quite been at the top for a long long time. I'd welcome it. Would even be acceptable in small doses.

So it all comes back to what you define as heritage and would constitutes an acceptable sacrifice (i.e. leaving North London to settle in East London) to consolidate progression and that competitive spirit in this age of money.

The club would have moved had they won the bid. That's the scary thing. The power of our custodians over the voice of the dispensable fan all too evident.

We are Tottenham, a small club they say, yet we always compete or at least show ambition to and the last 15 years or so (the barren 90s) has been down to bad management on the pitch (and off) in terms of managerial appointments. We still make money, we still splash said money. And look at us now, with the monopoly practically dead, we are always in with a chance. It's exciting. Let's not forget its all the depression that makes the good times good.

We need a bigger ground, not because I'm concerned about the £££ but because we have loyal hardcore fans who want season tickets and they are much needed because 50k will make more noise than 37K. The extra revenue will obviously help to bolster the rich and spoilt millionaires that wear the shirt with a fraction of the loyalty we possess. That's the hit right there.

I probably still haven't got my point across in the best way, but I guess what I want, what I need as a fan is different to how others might perceive things. Some are simply focused on the fact that a bigger stadium will equate to more money that will somehow guarantee success and glory. Might. Might not. It's a risk either way. Would prefer to retain our identity. I do agree we need to be ambitious. But want us to anchor ourselves to some of that emotive stuff that glues as together. That's the identity with all the romantic caveats attached.

You know, from my front door, Stratford is thirty minutes away by tube (and I don't even live in London). But I'd still rather spend 1 hour + getting into that sh*t hole in North London.

That's just me.

In a East End town, a dead end world

So on the one hand you might agree that Levy's legal sniping has pushed West Ham United, the OPLC, UK Athletics and the Government all into a corner with Boris serving up cups of tea in panic discussing issues raised. Issues pertaining to fairness and the running track which concludes with the break down of the Brady bunch owning the OS out right. But there was no panic. More of a swift counter-move on a dirty chess board that needs binning.

Instead they'll (probably) get a 125 lease (as good as owning it), except its not as good as owning it in terms of potential corporate profit you'd make if you did, to name just one reason. The running track is supposedly now cast in stone to remain. Or is it? I'm sure over time it will disappear. They will find a reason (or add it to the small print of the new bid) and validate it and let's be honest, few will care. By that point, the NDP will be in full swing and Levy will be past bothering himself with further court room dramatics. Anyone who moves into the OS and retains its current structure is asking for trouble either way. No atmosphere with running track, no atmosphere without it. Its an athletics stadium, its not purpose built for football. If its leased, what chance of a complete overhaul of its structure? Unlikely.

Not sure anyone has 'won the day'. Look at the money spent in the original bidding process. There has been plenty of manoeuvring and posturing and politics. But little has changed. They always wanted WH to 'win' the OS. They used Tottenham to consolidate the bid but the fallout now means they just have to swagger on in as tenants.

Levy's legal push is now redundant so perhaps they have won after all. They've defused all the bad publicity. They can now agree a new proposal that we (Levy) can hardly object too. It was of course the original process we had issues with. Still, as someone pointed out to me, WH can hardly dump debt as an asset onto a stadium they do not have ownership of. Affordable as tenants, but not in the long term.

At least the media cant be arsed to prolong this tiresome saga by suggesting we might want to pay rent in East London. We'll have to wait to see what all the official statements detail.

The most prominent THFC question, in terms of Machiavellian tactics, is whether Levy still retains any cards to bolster the redevelopment in N17. The concern is, he might still wish to bite back. This is Levy. Shrewd, hard as rock. We still await to see whether the fight for admission on the original process is now dead.

End game in sight, right?

Or perhaps not. Read this article by Martin Cloake. There are still plenty of questions that require answering, relating to accountability.

We can all agree (no matter Lilywhite or Claret and Blue) that this has been an absolute mess.

Tweets from the High Court

Confusion and conspiracy still dominates Spurs and the High Court. The suggestion has been that we would drop the legal fight off the back of a promise (you would assume/guess/hope) from Boris Johnson to support Tottenham and the NDP, with Boris himself alluding to this, stating that it was 'very likely' we'd drop the case. A caveat best included here to highlight that plenty of reading between the lines is necessary.

The BBC firstly reported we'd be letting it go then updated their story to say it was still going ahead. Hence the confusion. The conspiracy part remains why Daniel Levy wishes to persist with it. Perhaps because we do in fact have a case? Or that the chairman wants to get money back spent on the premise that we were invited to bid in the first place only to then find ourselves nothing more than a chess piece. Or maybe the OS and this entire process is a chess piece Levy continues to move around the board, brining us back to the question of public funding.

Considering recent events in N17 and the state of the place post-riots, there is government pressure to act regardless.

Follow Don Roan on Twitter (@danroan) for updates from the court room. Below, the ones he's sent thus far.

Off to the High Court later for latest round of Spurs' legal fight over the Olympic Stadium - or am I? @BBCLdnOlympics
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14641254

On way to High Court as Spurs appeal against rejection of application for judicial review into decision to give 2012 stadium to West Ham...

..but could be end of road for Spurs if appeal rejected or their lawyers advise abandonment- If case heard will start at 10.30 - updates here

Spurs' QC Dinah Rose arrives at High Court. Suggests club's judicial review appeal into Olympic Stadium decision will go ahead at 10.30

Latest round of Spurs' & Orient's High Court fight v decision to award Olympic stadium to West Ham goes ahead despite last - minute talks

OPLC Ch Exec Andrew Altman in High Court to hear argument of Spurs QC Dinah Rose as club bids for judicial review into 2012 stadium decision

Spurs QC Dinah Rose says Newham loan to West Ham for Oly Stadium was a "distortion of competition" & decision in favour of WHam "unlawful"

So the Mayor says it looks 'very likely' that Spurs will drop legal challenge re stadium decision - it's going ahead right now in Court 2!

Spurs QC arguing that the £40m loan Newham granted WestHam for stadium wouldn't have been available via private bank & was thus "state-aid"

Spurs are effectively arguing that the Newham loan to West Ham constituted state-aid, & was therefore illegal under EU law

Interesting developments in High Court. Judge says Spurs' case is "arguable" (ie has some merit) and refers to "confusion" in Newham case

Adam Lewis QC for Leyton Orient (also seeking judicial review) say PL's decision to permit WH to leave Upton Park compromised by relegation

Judge asks Leyton Orient's QC what club's gate is and what league they play in. Justice Collins clearly not a regular at Brisbane Road

Despite their court hearing appearing to go well, Spurs talks with Mayor re agreement for them to drop legal fight in return for help on ...

...move to Northumberland Park stadium are progressing well - announcement unlikely today but possible.

Judge stresses if he allows judicial review "doesn't mean the case will succeed". Appears to be gearing up to find in favour of Spurs/Orient

To be clear best Spurs can hope for today is that the stadium decision subject to full hearing in future. Would mean uncertainty continuing

2012 stadium judicial review hearing rumbles on. OPLC's counsel Richard Gordon QC on his feet - says Spurs case is "baseless".

Regardless of result of hearing, today has done little for reputation of WestHam/Newham partnership - key to making 2012 stadium viable...

...and if Spurs/Orient do win it casts doubt on London's chance of winning right to host '17 World Athletics Champs, lots at stake in Court2

Breaking: Judge grants permission for Spurs/Orient application for judicial review of decision to give Olympic stadium to West Ham

How exactly does one manage to lose 14-0?

The more I read into this Olympic Stadium debacle the more apparent the screw-job becomes. Or perhaps the screw-job only exists from a THFC perspective. Which would mean you would have to disagree with some of or most of the below when taken into a context. Unless of course THFC always new the most likely outcome would be a West Ham recommendation. But then that would mean knowing that the process was never fair from the start and still persisting with it. 

Why bid? Why be invited to bid?

If the likely outcome was expected then the bid might have simply been made for leverage (in favour of the NDP) that would be birthed at the 'conclusion'...whenever that might be. The theory is, government plays into Levy's hand and 'shuts him up' by giving him what he desires. Any added bonus of suspended OPLC members and laughable statements from Brady and co would be a exactly that...a bonus.

The payment controversy might turn out to be nothing or the evidence inadmissible. Or it could do some heavyweight damage. Perhaps the prospect of such damage is damaging enough to find that amicable conclusion (i.e Levy wins by not actually winning what he set out to win). It's not exactly the type of  headlines everyone involved with the Olympic Games would want to be choking over during breakfast every other morning.

Not that I was in favour of a move away from N17, but regardless of my affiliations, I've collated the various soundbites whilst reading through hefty quantities of articles/threads and discussions on the subject.

Is anyone truly surprised? What government wants, government gets.

Here's the bullety points:

West Ham

- West Ham United, in debt to the tune of £100M (or so)
- Relegation on cards during process of OS bid
- £80M funds required for OS project to also retain stadium as Olympic legacy
- £40M handed to private sector business via a low interest loan from a fiscally poor Newham Council
- West Ham met the OPLC's financial criteria simply based on the loan from Newham Council
- If West Ham ever defaulted on loan, the debt would fall on the taxpayers of Newham
'Catastrophic' relegation achieved
- Championship West Ham United who could not pack out their smaller and current Premier League home will be entrusted to pack out a larger home possibly whilst still languishing in a league that isn't the top tier of English football
- The very same Championship side that have owners apparently paying out of their back pocket to sign Kevin Nolan's services for five-years, on an alleged 50k per week contract
- The very same Premier League rules relating to local territory used by West Ham to argue against Tottenham's proposed geographical shift from the North to the East were completely ignored by side-stepping the potential for Leyton Orient to suffer in terms of their fanbase catchment area*

*Tottenham have no right either, a case of 'who the f**k are Orient?' from everyone involved

The OPLC

- The OPLC clearly state post-decision the running track was an 'essential' element to the OS bid and hence why WH won it even though they encouraged Spurs to bid for the stadium, a bid that included no running track in the clubs plans post-Olympic games
- The OPLC clearly state post-decision that retaining the original stadium was an 'essential' element to the OS bid and hence why WH won it even though they encouraged Spurs to bid when they had made it clear they planned to demolish the original site and build a new purpose built football stadium in it's place
- Tessa Sanderson asked to step down from OPLC due to Newham Council affiliation
- Suggestions that various members of the decision committee had links with Newham Council
- THe OPLC/government never had any intentions of considering the Tottenham bid no matter the financial implications and relevance in terms of club statue and link up with AEG

Tottenham

- Financial secure bid and partnership (with AEG)
- Plans pencilled in for Crystal Palace guaranteeing a viable legacy that will offer only athletics all year round (although CP themselves opposed this for alternative plans of their own)
- Absolutely no ambiguity in terms of the plan for redeveloping the Olympic site
- Absolutely no 'doors closed' by OPLC during the duration of the bidding even though post-bid it has become apparent the details in Spurs plans do not match up with the post-decision clarity given for awarding it to West Ham

The decision and aftermath

- 14-0 in favour of the West Ham bid
- Levy pushes for judicial review of 'unfair process' leading to OS decision
- Judge rejects first hearing, suggests no point in pushing further
- Levy requests oral hearing, as per right to do so
- Allegations of corruption made relating to the OPLC decision and West Ham bid
- Alleged secret payments made to an employee of the OPLC
- A WHU Olympic director alleged arranged payments to be paid to the OPLC's director of Corporate Services
- Two further individuals were allegedly involved in a personal relationship
- West Ham United say payments were for consultancy work
- Vice-chair person Karren Brady fully aware of payments
- WHU Olympic director suspended
- OPLC employee suspended after all this transpired via the Sunday Times article that broke the story
- West Ham release statement, will take legal action
- Suggestion that Spurs tactics in hiring PR's to investigate corruption might be considered 'dirty' (although using dirty tactics to uncover dirty tactics should hardly be reason to turn away and dismiss out of hand)

Conclusions

- Mud-slinging in public in the lead up to the Olympics that the Government could do without
- The OPLC will not over-turn the decision
- The WH bid will not likely collapse regardless of relegation (which was planned as a potentiality)
- The OPLC along with the athletics community all supported the West Ham bid, preferring the idea of an iconic legacy to be used every so often rather than the Crystal Palace alternative
- Government, OPLC: only wanted a Spurs bid to aid towards guaranteeing a legacy and making sure West Ham adhered to all their blueprint
- A Spurs OS recommendation would hurt a bid for the athletics European Championships at the current OS site (rather than what Spurs suggested, Crystal Palace), a bid that needs to be submitted this summer. A bid that could possibly be effected by any continuing legal reviews pushed by Levy i.e. the next hearing
- Levy doesn't expect to get anything out of this other than the one thing he wants. Public funding for the NDP, re: RDF.
- Therefore; this is all to do with leverage
- Levy 'Machiavellian', reactively and otherwise

Obviously there is hearsay, suggestions, perspective and currently unproven allegations to consider but the stuff that's black and white and indisputable just confirms that the decision to award WH was one taken before Spurs even entered 'the race'. Politics, hey?

This will make your head spin

This is satire at it's very best. From West Ham site, KUMB:

Tottenham's dirty tricks exposed

Filed: Sunday, 3rd July 2011
By: Staff Writer


The full extent of the dirty tricks played by Tottenham in the 'cash-for-stadium' row have been exposed.

Today's Sunday Times revealed how the OPLC's director of corporate services was paid circa £20,000 for 'consultancy work' by West Ham - work sanctioned by the club's Olympic Director, said to be in a relationship with the aforementioned. More details on that can be seen here.

However it also reveals the depths that Tottenham were prepared to sink to in order to derail West Ham's move into the Olympic Stadium, which was ratified by the Government earlier this year.

1. Hired 'corporate intelligence' company: The Times claimed that Spurs hired the intelligence agency two days before the OPLC declared their preferred bidder to investigate the 14 members of the adjudicating panel in order to unearth any potential conflicts of interest.

2. Hired private investigators: Having struck gold, Tottenham ordered investigators to place Dionne Knight, the OPLC director at the centre of the storm under personal surveillance. This included a 'stake-out' of the single mother's home, where she lives with her 14-year-old daughter.

3. Accessed personal information: Tottenham's investigators admitted procuring sensitive documents - including personal bank statements belonging to both Knight and the West Ham employee - along with other sensitive personal information usually protected by data protection laws.
 
West Ham fans posting on forums across the web tonight have urged the club to immediately halt any future transfer dealings with Tottenham in response to the revelations - including any potential move for Scott Parker.

Sorry, I lied. It's not satire. Honestly, hand on heart.

West Ham's response to The Sunday Times article that revealed the 'conspiracy' can be found on their official site. They're going to sue us.

All kicking off. Again.

Will someone please think of the children?

The never ending story does what it says on the tin. Official club statement here.

Twitter reaction:

I think we have all lost track of it now. I guess he wants to be in court same time as 'Arry. Save on cab fares... @SpursSimon

are we really appealling the failed right to appeal? @Studub

Ref: OS appeal - doesn't mean decision will be overturned. Just means #thfc could be awarded compensation for unfair award process @RichSibley

Oh Daniel, you are starting to wind me the f**k up now. Maybe you should concentrate on a live striker instead of a dead duck @Bentleysbird

Rather tenacious our Mr Levy. Reminds me of an annoying Jack Russell, continually yapping & nipping at ankles @Coq_Au_Ginge

#Spurs' attitude to the Olympic Stadium is embarrassing, but not as embarrassing as the idea of W. Ham vs Barnet there in front of 2000 fans @daveeeeeed

#levy. We dont f**king want the stadium. The govt dont want us to have it. Pls just wipe your mouth of it before we dont want YOU #thfc @Rabbicrackers

F*ck the Olympic Stadium Levy! What we need is a statue of Michael Jackson outside White Hart Lane #COYS @aGrime

Join the chat: @Spooky23