• Is the Firoka deal dead or not?

THE CHAIRMAN of the Alexandra Palace Board of Trustees (for at least another month) recently wrote that “the Trust continues to explore” how to achieve the significant investment needed for the palace.

This may or may not be news to Firoka, the property developer with which the London Borough of Haringey signed a 125 year lease for our charity’s asset.

For some time now, the Trust and its PR company Lexington have claimed that Firoka will deliver £75m or £55m or - most recently – £45 million of “investment”. Why does the exploration for cash continue? Has the Trust in fact lost its way?

The contract with Firoka specifically promises a Casino in the User Clause section. Despite much obfuscatory bluster, this is not denied. The chairman has not yet offered an explanation for the casino clause or even acknowledged it. Is the reason for no comment that this Clause is a matter of embarrassment to the Council? Perhaps the next chairman will address it.

Another sign the deal is dead is that the Chairman has, for the first time, publicly opined that the casino “would be totally inappropriate at the Palace”. Is the reason that this was not said earlier, because of a fear of offending Mr Kassam, who insisted that there was the promise of a casino in the contract? But if the whole deal is off, it is now safe to make such a bold statement? Is this leadership?

If a casino fails to materialize at AP, it will be because either the whole Firoka deal is off or because Haringey renege on its promise to Firoka of a casino in the legally enforceable lease. The later to cost the Council a lot of money, but hey, its only our money they would pay to Firoka in damages!

For the past two years, the Council has described Firoka as its “Preferred Development Partner”

When Firoka were evicted from Alexandra Palace in December, following their unlawful occupation, the Trust issued some kind of ultimatum to Firoka.

This was followed in January with what the chairman then described as receipt from Firoka of a statement expressing the “clarity” the Trustees had been seeking and “fresh commitment” from their preferred partner. The commitment that was fresh then, now looks stale and even rancid.

And recently we heard a renewed offer to takeover AP from the current London Mayor, in which the Haringey council leader expressed glee and interest. Is this another signal the Firoka deal is dead?

The chairman is keen on always being clear, or at least saying he wants to be clear. Can he please clarify whether or not the Firoka deal is on or off? Will the Trust proceed with the Firoka deal or consign it to the dustbin where it always belonged? The uncertainty is not helpful and some of the Trust’s concerned beneficiaries would like to know.

The chairman’s commitment to openness “in the coming months” was first made last Christmas, four months ago. Since then we have had the normal secretiveness and repeated exclusion of press and public whenever there needs to be discussed something that is politically embarrassing. The public – the beneficiaries – needs fewer vacuous platitudes and more information from this shady Trust.

Published
Hornsey Journal
30 April 2007

More honesty and less secrecy is needed in AP debate

COUNCIL management of Alexandra Palace has generated heated criticism over the years. Unfortunately, little new light was shed on the shady affairs of our Trust in the article (Ham and High 17/01) run over the name of its Chairman. It seems the public – the owners and beneficiaries of the Trust – are still expected to be content with bluster and platitudes.

IT IS possible that the article may have been drafted or edited by Lexington Communications, one of London’s more expensive Public Relations companies. Since 2005, that PR firm has been retained at a cost to our Charity of more than £180,000. According to their website, Lexington specialize in crisis management and one of their jobs has been to represent Trust-bungling to the public in the best possible light. The possible PR-hand in the article may explain the welter of warm woolly words of waffle.


Who is the real ‘Burden’?
WE are told that the trading company (APTL) has to generate the maximum profit possible to lighten the burden of the Palace from the Haringey taxpayer. This is misleading because:

(a) Councillor-trustees deprived our Charity of hundreds of thousands of pounds by agreeing prematurely to let Firoka take possession of trading operations (early 2007) without completion; (b) the ballooning of the deficit in the last 18 months was caused by wasteful expenditure relating to the council’s bungled sale attempt; (c) the council evaded the large recurring cost (up to 2006) of maintaining the associated public park: the burden was carried by our Trust; (d) the council, in defiance of the 1996 ruling of the Treasury Solicitor, lumped their huge interest costs into Palace’s accounts and (e) on the whole, AP has been subsizing the council and not the other way around, as the council would have us believe.

For the ten years to the end of 2006, the AP trading operations were modestly profitable. The Trust accounts have been analysed by an independent accountant whose findings can be seen at:

Myth of the White Elephant

The chronic council-burden is represented by fitful control exercised by transitory, inattentive trustees who occasionally authorize reckless spending. Alexandra Palace is not a burden on the council; it is the other way around.


Progress and development in 27 years?
IT IS misleading to characterize the opponents of the sale to Firoka as having an “obsessive agenda against development and progress”. In the High Court filings (Statements of Fact and Grounds of Challenge #4), for SAP it was warranted:

It should, however, be noted that the claimant and the members of the ‘Save Ally Pally campaign’ of which he is part, are not by any means opposed in principle to the granting of leases by the Trustees or to appropriate development of Alexandra Palace”.

It is council stewardship which has lacked flair and vision: the only vision the council could see was that of a property developer. The lack of progress and development over the last 27 years is not the fault of any one councillor, but a monument to Municipal meddling. Yet the potential of the building is huge, possibly as a world-famous tourist attraction, The Birthplace of Television with panoramic views across Europe’s biggest city.

The article recognizes that the Palace is an ‘historic asset’ but there’s no mention of why it is a potential UN World Heritage Site. It is a great pity that the Lease agreed by the council made no provision for keeping the world’s first television studios and indeed, there was expectation that they would have to go. Why must ‘securing the future’ necessarily mean demolishing the past?

Simply by not caring, Haringey has distressed the asset, but when Listing issues are raised, it is not unknown for developers to speed up the distressing of assets – it eases the wholesale (“holistic”) development of the prime parts. The irony is that the world’s first public TV broadcast was the inspiration for the council’s logo for 40 years.


Chronic council misleading
THE council never released any AP sale-related documents before the end of the Public Consultation (5 January 2007). Heavily redacted versions of some documents were released after formal application under the Freedom of Information Act and some documents were never released.

Yet in July 2007 in a council debate, the Chairman asserted (all recorded on web-cam) that AP’s future was “all in the public domain”. This kind of misrepresentation will continue as long as AP remains a political football.

It would be nice to be able to overlook council conduct in these matters; but anyone in doubt about Trust deceit and duplicity has only to read the evidence and Decision of the High Court.

The successful Judicial Review shone a powerful spotlight on Trustee machinations and Justice Sullivan delivered his decision to quash the Lease in cool, reasoned terms.

The suggestion of AP “as a centre point of our community; alive with people from all over our borough” misses the point that the building is more than just a Borough or London asset: it is nationally and internationally important. The article’s sentiment about community also needs to be contrasted with earlier statements from Palace spokesmen which implied the need to offload the venue was more desperate than ever.

We need the misleading and the misrepresentation to end. The only purpose it serves is to promote mistrust of the Trust.


A vision not shared: a casino and 30,000 square feet of offices
The article speaks of the need to create “a Palace fit for the people of Haringey and beyond to enjoy for many years to come”. That enjoyment may refer to the small casino, which the chairman has said was a myth and never part of the final proposals.

But is it not the case that after a fire-sale to Firoka, the People’s Palace could see conversion to 30,000 square feet of offices, likely to be let at full market rental? Would this office space replace only the world’s first TV studios or would it spread into most of the East Wing?

The User Clause in the agreed Firoka Lease (finally obtained under the Freedom of Information Act 2000) provides for:

3.11.2.6—use as a small casino (as referred to in section 7(5) (c) of the Gambling Act 2005); and

3.11.2.7—use as offices for community based uses and other uses, not exceeding 2,788 m2 of Net Internal Area within the area shown [ ] on the Plan.

The article spoke twice of a shared vision with the public. The Trustees so little wanted to share these visions, that they did all in their power, including unlawful actions, to ensure they never saw the light of day. It took no less than defeat in the High Court for these visions to be ‘shared’. And within days of that defeat in October, the Trust had resolved unanimously to persist with the agreed Lease.

Was the big office development shown in the Palm Court display? Perhaps for the Trust Chairman, “providing a range of exciting uses” does include a huge swathe of commercial office space, but it may disappoint locals who hoped for something even more interesting.

What we need is plain speaking and an end to public relations spin which only promotes cynicism about the council. What is meant by “move forward together with a mutual aim of securing our palace for everyone”? Sorry to appear so rude, but does that mean selling the building for £1.5m to Firoka for offices, or not?


Obsession with secrecy
ANY resident daring to ask to see documents relating to the sale of our asset (under the Freedom of Information Act) was refused on grounds of commercial confidentiality. As was found by the High Court, Haringey council put great pressure on the Charity Commission to throttle public information and make an utter farce of the Consultation.

The article speaks of “working harder to ensure the public knows what is going on up at the hill”? But the current chairman has often chosen to exclude press and public from Board meetings. Will this policy change? Allowing us beneficiaries to hear deliberations of our Charity would be a good start. Perhaps that is what is meant by “new means of engaging with local people”?

We need the obsession with secrecy and control to end – they serve no purpose except to reduce public confidence. We need transparency, information and questions answered. For example, why should a council company (APTL) be applying to the council for a permanent gambling licence at the Palace? In that decision, what role was played by the public or the advisory or consultative committees?

Previous policies have kept the public in the dark and stifled debate, even though AP is our building and owned by our charitable trust. It has been our misfortune it has been controlled by a single, skint council. Understandably, the chairman does not want to discuss how the present situation arose. The lost opportunities of 27 years, the bloody-minded policy to get rid of AP for a pittance, the waste of money in that pursuit, all happened before the current chairman’s tenure.


Effect on APTL staff and customers
PERHAPS the most damaging and regrettable aspect of the seven-month period in which the Trust let in Firoka to run the Palace, was the effect on staff morale and the lives of workers. Firoka’s aggressive management style drove away staff and customers.

Firoka bosses turning up the heat, may have been calculated to reduce the viability of the existing business and prepare a situation for flexible asset-stripping. It was cheaper for the developer-of-last-resort to create conditions such that staff left of their own accord, rather than having to pay redundancy.

APTL lost both staff and reputation. The promoter of the Antique & Collectors Fair for 25 years was unable to agree new terms with the Firoka boss. On the Pig and Whistle website she said:

“key members of staff have left, the new management have shown a lack of understanding of the complexities of running the event …”

After the Trust nearly suffocated APTL, its resuscitation is now presented to us as a success. The truth is that reviving APTL was forced on the council because of the unlawfulness of Firoka’s continued occupation of the Palace and thus far, Firoka’s failure to respond with a firm commitment. The continued pleading with Firoka to take over, is the mark of an organisation still keen to abdicate responsibility.


Waiting for the developer-of-last-resort
THE Trust’s declared intention is to “wait for Firoka’s decision with confidence”. The public is waiting with apprehension as we now know how flawed the deal is. How is the public involved with this process? Firoka’s decision would relate to a deal Cooked up by the council in secret. Apparently, the council is still prepared for the same deal to go ahead – will they be more open and honest now?

The PR smokescreen is intended to hide the hedging-of-bets by the Trust. The haziness of the Trust’s timetable is alluded to by reference to decisions taken to secure the Palace’s future for “the medium term”. The short-term is a total write-off, while the prospect of a long-term future with the council makes hearts sink. “Immediate development” may not be possible, and there is doubt whether the council’s developer-of-last-resort will commit, sue, or slink away.

The council may not have noticed that the economic outlook is not good – particularly for the leisure sector and for commercial property. This could be the deciding factor and the council may be waiting a long time for Firoka’s decision.

We are told that AP has a future. But what kind of future? Is the get-rid-of-it policy still on, or off? Is the articulated lorry steered by the chair, careering ahead or not? Organizations with resolve and direction do not perform U-turns. If Firoka return tomorrow with a ‘firm commitment’, will there be another screeching U-turn? Any more driving like this and there won’t be much rubber left on the tyres.


Ultimatum? What ultimatum?
IN December, it was reported in the press that the Trust had given Firoka two weeks to make a “firm commitment”. This demand expired on 28 December without response. The tactic failed and the Trust looked more feeble than ever.

The PR article muddied the waters by having us believe that no ultimatum was issued in the first place, so an ultimatum could not have failed, could it?

To pretend no ultimatum existed only serves to demonstrate a lack of clarity. By continuing to wait for a decision from Firoka, the Trust is signalling that APTL might be a stop-gap, that they are standing by, ready to shut APTL down again in the future. This message leaves uncertainty hanging over the future and hobbles the declared intention of getting APTL to generate the maximum profit possible.

Council vacillation about the lack of response to the cut-off date/ultimatum has left APTL as a hostage to fortune. It would be preferable from all points of view if the council acted decisively and announced the Firoka deal was ended. Any idea of selling to an asset-stripper must end and end now.


Trust past and future trust
A FUTURE Leader of Haringey may yet be candid enough to regret dealings with Firoka, in the same way that the leader of Oxford City council recently and publicly regretted his own council’s past dealings with that property developer (see: saga of Oxford United Football club).

The original rationale for placing our Charity in the control of a local council was to provide a backstop in case of financial trouble. The trust could not go bankrupt because the enduring council would always be there to underwrite any loss. In practice, the very involvement of the council has increased the financial problems due to poor management, for example the more than £20m cost overrun on the re-building after the fire. The building was de facto incorporated into the council empire and drawn in to the traditional culture of municipal management. Alexandra Palace was run by amateur council managers and treated as a municipal block for 27 years.

The council privately realized their continuing involvement was not ideal and tried quietly to give it away to a property developer. They would care little what happened after that point: it would be off their hands. But AP was not theirs to sell. We need the long heavy council burden lifted and our Charity returned to us, the beneficiaries.


Few would envy Councillor Cooke’s job as chair
THE current chair is the same age as the length of time AP has been in Haringey’s hands. He cannot be responsible for the chronic, deep-seated problems with our Trust. The problems are inherited from previous politicians and past misconceived policies. Because the current chair is also a politician, it is too much to expect recognition, let alone acknowledgement, that predecessors made mistakes which cost taxpayers dear.

Councillor Cooke now chairs both the Trust Board and APTL and bears a heavy responsibility for the AP future. But he also has a rare, brief chance to break the cycle of one AP chair handing on AP’s problems to the next chairman. One of Haringey’s mistakes is believing that all their AP problems will be over as soon as they get rid of AP to a property developer – but still remain as Trustees. It will be hard to let go.

There is little long-term hope for AP while it continues – as it has for the past 27 years – under council trusteeship. The trustees, including the chair, are all fleeting figures whose priorities are properly their wards and council business. Councillors are only ever able to give AP passing attention and then only for a year or two before new faces arrive.

The ‘advice’ that is acted on by the councillors – and in practice, the real decisions – come from long-term senior AP employees and hangers-on, who are deeply entrenched. Some of their advice to the transitory politicians, including legal advice, has been questionable and the Board might reflect on this. If the still relatively-new chairman is sincere about things at the Palace changing, he would be sensible to question closely the ‘advice’ he receives from the advisors handsomely paid for by us.


Problem presents opportunity for radical change
THE council might allow that the Trust has long been a distraction from core council responsibilities. If the council still want to divest themselves of this Trust asset – and there would be few who would dissent from that proposition – they will have to consider the tough and difficult decision to hand over responsibility to new trustees who have abiding interest in the building and its internationally important history.

Any continuation of the failing, flog-it-to-Firoka policy could end up in the High Court again. When the Trustees are defeated again, they may begin to detect their policy is not ideal. But, in the wake of the humiliation of a damning Court defeat – and its repercussions – there are created conditions conducive to real radical change.

Management theory has it that problems also present opportunities. The fact there is a big problem at the Palace also means that the chance for dramatic change is also large. Matt Cooke could build a big positive reputation as a fixer if he seized the chance: exhibit bold leadership and cast out the old failed policies.

This would see the council relinquishing control of our Palace by handing over responsibility to a new fully independent board of dedicated trustees, appointed for their experience and professionalism. In this way we would see a return of the People’s Palace to the People and set in motion a virtuous chain of events that leads to a restoration of AP to its world famous heritage status. A win-win outcome for both the Council and the People. A consensus.

A BEGINNER’s guide to AP - click pic for bigger

ALEXANDRA Palace disorganisation chart. 

Note: this diagram does not reflect the Board's serving notice of eviction on their ‘preferred development partner’ (!) in early December 2007, but it still shows the main relationships. Note the number of committees, in practice mostly disregarded by the Council-run Trust. Tangled or what?!

• Council condoned casino?

Uncertainty over the Casino option for the Alexandra Palace Charitable Trust

THE Chairman of the AP Charitable Trust, Councillor Matt Cooke, has described the Casino shown in the plans of the Council’s favoured development partner, as merely an ‘option’. It might be helpful for the public if the status or likelihood of the Casino option could be clarified. Firoka’s casino option is I believe, the only casino currently proposed for Haringey.

A few factors give rise to concern. The Council has stated that they have not decided whether or not to have a ‘No-Casinos’ policy. This is shown on page 17 of the Council’s Statement of Gambling Policy.

There are currently no casinos operating within the borough. There is no resolution to prohibit casinos in the borough at present. The licensing authority is aware it has the power to do so under section 166 of the Gambling Act 2005. However the Council reserves the right to review this situation and may, at some time in the future, resolve not to permit casinos. Should the Council choose to make such a resolution, this will be a resolution of full Council.

Thus, the door is left open for the Council’s favoured business partner, Firoka, to have a Casino they want (Firoka were disappointed last year to be thwarted in getting casino permission in Oxford).

Firoka’s outline proposals show only a small casino in the basement, but if they eventually get approval for their casino, that operation would likely generate the most cash and the most profits within the Charitable Trust. The desire to expand from a small casino would be great, in the same way that there is great pressure for more gambling establishments in Green Lanes.

The Chairman of our Charitable Trust has previously discussed the casino option only in managerial terms: whether it is possible under current legislation (it is), rather than in terms of whether it is desirable. Not all of Cllr. Cooke’s colleagues are as indifferent as he appears to be, about gambling and its social effects.

Last year, the Charity’s long-time legal advisor, Trust Solicitor Mr Iain Harris, wrote to the Charity Commission

You have expressed concern that use as a small casino is not charitable. This is a very small part of the development proposal, certainly not something that is likely to happen for some time. Be that as it may, I would advance the proposition that casino use does fall within the objects of the Charity as a recreational activity

(letter to Mrs. V. Crandon,
Charity Commission, 7 July 2006, p.3)

Is Mr. Harris is writing on behalf of a Charitable Trust, on behalf of a property developer or both?

Some find it remarkable that the Council is currently sponsoring the first gambling license for Alexandra Palace. It is an application for a premises licence for permanent track betting. The application is in the name of Alexandra Palace Trading Ltd. (APTL). This is the council-owned and council-controlled trading company that runs day-to-day operations in our Charitable Trust. It appears this license is being sought on behalf of Firoka, whose first application – almost identical to the APTL one - was rejected because Firoka (wrongly) claimed the right to occupy the Palace.

It seems likely that when it comes to the licensing hearing, the committee Councillors will award the license to the company controlled by fellow Councillors. The public may see this as Council condoning and endorsing of gambling and be concerned that this will pave the way for wider gambling use in future in the seven acre Alexandra Palace building.

The Council is keen to keep their favoured business partner in discussions over the sale of Alexandra Palace, even though a High Court judge quashed the sale in October. Firoka at that stage may have contemplated suing the Trustees on the grounds that the Council mislead Firoka over the need for a public consultation. Firoka probably bit on their tongue because the deal they still want is monstrously lucrative for them, even more with a casino option.

Now the Council have (finally) evicted Firoka from the building, nine weeks after the High Court ruling, Firoka may feel let down by their ‘development partner’ and feel somewhat bruised. What could be offered to Firoka to keep them quiet and sweet?

Knowing how badly Firoka want a Casino in the Charitable Trust asset, is it possible that there is a private understanding that they will eventually get it, with quiet Council approval? This could be the one ultra-lucrative sweetener that keeps Firoka in the deal and prevents them from suing the Trustees for breach of contract and for misleading Firoka over the need to have a public Consultation.

The sale agreements for Alexandra Palace, which remain concealed from the public on the basis of ‘commercial confidentiality’, may contain clauses providing for Haringey’s first casino.

Notwithstanding the general commercial confidentiality agreement, is it possible for the Council to confirm - at least on this particular question - whether or not the sale documents refer to or allow for a casino in the Charitable Trust asset (Alexandra Palace)?

There has been too much secrecy and equivocation about this. An unambiguous statement is needed from the Council about the casino option so the public knows where it stands.

• Carry-on-bungling

IT'S CARRY ON bungling at Alexandra Place, with Council-appointed Trustees last week agreeing to evict the Council’s favoured business partner (Firoka) and in the same breath, begging him to stay (!). The public could be forgiven for being confused and it would all be hilarious but for the fact that the incompetence and mismanagement is being paid for by us and by cuts to services. The bungling tab is picked up by the Trustees = The Council = Taxpayers.

HARINGEY would have the public believe that the Firoka-eviction is the smooth execution of a coherent strategy to relieve ratepayers of a large burden. A spokesman for AP stated “it was a good time to end the agreement giving both parties an opportunity to reflect on the outcome of the judicial review” (they’ve had about nine weeks to consider on the judge’s damning remarks). The Chairman said of the U-turn “… it is right and proper that we now look to bring our own trading company back on-line …”

The truth is different. Firoka’s occupation - approved by the Trustees - was brought to the attention of both the Attorney General and of the District Auditor. The Trustees knew that the slipshod situation they had engineered would not pass muster. We shall watch with interest to make sure they really do leave and that this is not just another Haringey-sham.

Firoka leaves the Palace having trousered money from all the events held there since May. This could be a seven figure sum. We do not yet know how much of this money is owed to our Trust and how much, if any, has been passed to our Trust. We do know that Firoka has not paid for the Lease since they assumed the management of the building in May; the Lease was quashed by order of the High Court of Justice on 5 October 2007. Haringey let the occupation slide on for a further nine weeks.

Did the oft-quoted short-term licence agreement “dated” May 2007 really exist? Does the public get to see a copy of the 28 day notice to leave? When did the notice start? It is besides the point that Firoka may have paid some running costs during the time of their occupation. Did they pay rent? Goodwill? A Premium? Who pays for Insurance? Repairs? Maintenance? Is the taxpayer to wear all this? When will the Trustees take responsibility for this bungling?

Firoka’s boss at the Palace, Shaun Ormrod leaves behind a bruised and demoralized workforce, what is left of it. Ormrod expected to stay in charge and the staff were unhappy with the management style. They were encouraged to resign, which avoids eligibility for redundancy payments. It is surprisingly that a Labour Council allowed its workers to be treated so shabbily.

Firoka should not have been allowed in the palace in the first place. The incompetent Trustees, some of whom do not know what is going on, agreed to a late change in the Lease by Firoka, that would allow Firoka to occupy the Palace just one month after the Charity Commission sealed the sale Order. Normally the period would be three months, allowing sufficient time for any Judicial Review to manifest itself.

How many folk selling their property would allow possession before completion? In effect, this is what the Trustees agreed to.

The Trustees and their legal advisor, if they thought about it at all, were presumably gambling that no legal challenge would come. It came, they lost, costs were awarded against them. It seems that negligence was involved at some point and it is a pity that the Trustees never take personal responsibility for their decisions, otherwise they might take them more seriously.

The Trust chairman said

“The time has come for Firoka to decide whether to move ahead in partnership with us as preferred development partner at the Palace. If there is a will to progress, we are prepared, ready and willing to move forward.”

The time has come for the Trustees to decide whether or not to persist with the biggest rip-off of public assets in Borough history, or to hand over the reigns to those who have the interests of the people at heart.

The Chairman has spoken of his love for the Palace: so much love that he can’t wait to get rid of it! His love for the Palace might be compared with the love of a mother giving up her baby for adoption to a known pedophile! (see: Firoka and Oxford City Council)

The Council believes their problems over AP will end as soon as they get rid of the Palace. But when new problems arise, the public would still look to the Council as Trustee to solve them. Except the Council would be in a hugely weaker position to do anything about it, having sold the building.

Eviction of Firoka does not end the troubled stewardship at Alexandra Palace. The only thing that will end the agonies over AP will be a change in Trustees, away from the dead hand of an incompetent Council.

[letter sent 17 December 2007]

• Power-play, poker and permissions at the Palace

I WAS GLAD to see the Member of Parliament for Tottenham, David Lammy, publicly endorse a recent refusal of an application for a betting licence:

The decision by Haringey Council to refuse a licence for yet another betting shop on Green Lanes should be applauded …

… This is something I will support in our community and will fight to keep this on the political agenda in Parliament.

David Lammy MP

Letters, various local papers, 20 November

I hope the MP would agree that there are more than enough betting facilities in Haringey. I further hope that Mr Lammy, as a former Minister of Culture, might oppose another betting licence application in Haringey, this time in our Borough’s most important building, Alexandra Palace.

This latest application might be the thin end of a thick wedge (of cash) that culminates in a few years time in Haringey’s first casino. This current application (just for track betting) is made in the name of ‘Alexandra Palace Trading Limited’ (APTL).

APTL is a secretive company controlled by none other than Haringey Council itself. The sole shareholder of APTL is the AP Trust Board. Both Boards comprise Haringey Councillors and all Councillors on the APTL Board are on the main Trust Board. APTL is therefore absolutely under the control of the Majority Group of the Council.

(What’s the betting that the Haringey Licensing Authority will find in APTL, a most trustworthy applicant of utmost integrity to whom they have no hesitation in awarding a gambling licence?!)

I hope that Mr. Lammy will hold firm to his principles and not be deflected by the fact that, with this new gambling licence application, Haringey Council is in effect, applying to itself for permission (a conflict of interest?).

What might further complicate this matter for the Member of Parliament, is that Haringey would be granting a licence to themselves in order to help out a private business with which they have become enmeshed. The need for APTL to help out their crony, arose because of what appears to be a need to circumvent Section 342 of the Gambling Act (see below) in connection with an earlier application made by the private company. Unofficially, APTL is applying on behalf of Firoka (Alexandra Palace) Ltd. whose original gambling application was turned down because it contained two fascinating claims:

In Firoka’s original application of 9 November 2007, they (a) confirmed that they had the right to occupy the premises and (b) applied for a permanent gambling licence.

There is no doubt that Firoka do occupy the premises and the claim for permanency may not at first sound remarkable.

But on 5 October 2007 – less than five weeks earlier – a Judicial Review had quashed the Order to sell Alexandra Palace to Firoka. Haringey’s behaviour leading up to that sale had been such that the High Court awarded costs against Haringey. The Judge said that the Trustees (i.e. Haringey) were “the authors of their own misfortune”. No one should hold their breath waiting for Haringey to explain that away!

The Chief Executive of Haringey Council, Dr. Ita O’Donovan, recently confirmed that Firoka Management “was given a very short term licence to trade at the Palace” but she has declined to give further details. Firoka’s managers have been handed both the income and management of Alexandra Palace, in exchange for – nothing. At least, nothing that the public knows about.

According to the gambling licence application form “… it is an offence under section 342 of the Gambling Act 2005 to give information which is false or misleading in, or in relation to, this application”. Again, no one should hold their breath waiting for Haringey to take action over the statements of their business partner.

I sincerely hope Mr. Lammy will not turn a blind eye to the continuing irregularities at the Palace. Three things seem certain:

1. Firoka are keen to have a Casino at Alexandra Palace. A casino would be generate much cash and profits for the Firoka company. Last year, Firoka tried to get a Super Casino in Oxford but were frustrated. A casino is clearly shown on Firoka’s architects’ plans for Alexandra Palace.

Firoka are insisting on total control over the entire building with what is euphemistically called a ‘Holistic Lease’. Firoka have repeatedly threatened to walk away from this shady deal unless they get everything they want. Haringey have suggested in the past that he will not be allowed his casino, but Mr. Kassam has a reputation of getting what he wants and he is a past-master at dealing with local authorities of variable competence.

2. Haringey are keen to sell Alexandra Palace to Firoka. Haringey have bent over backwards and forwards to accommodate their favoured partner. They are so keen to give Firoka everything they want, they have agreed to sell AP for a reported figure of only £1.5 million. But if one deducts the sale costs – by 2006, £1.2 million – from the sale proceeds, the Council will have received nothing. But it is worse than that for ratepayers: as part of the deal, the Council will incur new, extra, regular costs which are the annual upkeep of the park and road: now running at £740k/year and rising, costs previously met by the profitable Trust). The lengths to which Haringey are prepared to go to please Firoka, can be gauged by the fact that our local Council has even agreed to the destruction of the world’s first television studios, a potential UN World Heritage site.

3. Most of the deal remains secret. All the sale documents, including the Lease and Master Agreement were deliberately concealed by Haringey from the public during the Consultation. That was heavily criticized by the High Court. Even now, those documents are available only in severely redacted form. But the top-secret Project Agreement has never been available to the public, even in redacted form. The key finding of the High Court, was that Haringey had no business entering into any confidential deals in the first place over the AP sale, which contradicted the promise of a Minister in Parliament. Some of the concerns raised here may be groundless, but unless all sale documents are published un-redacted, we will never know. Haringey’s PR statements and politician-assurances have negligible legal value: only what is contained in the contractual agreements is legally enforceable.

Conclusion: For public consumption, Haringey claims there will not be a Casino at AP. Before the sale of our Charitable Trust’s asset, they will probably repeat this. But how can we know there does not exist a “gentleman’s” agreement or a clause in the secret contract providing for a casino in the future? A couple of years after a sale, and after Firoka threatens to pull out for the umpteenth time, they might then be granted the full gambling facilities they are keen on.

Even with the arrangements over the current APTL application (for permanent track-betting) we see how eager the Council is to help their favoured partner. A private or secret arrangement about the Casino could be the one sweetener that prevents Firoka from walking away.

By turning a blind eye to the occupation of AP by a private company, probably after the expiry of their licence to trade, Haringey thumb their nose at the High Court decision. The whole process relating to this sale shows that Haringey Council believe they are beyond the law.

I hope David Lammy MP might read the evidence and the Judgment from the totemic High Court case, together with further information about the continuing scandal at Ally Pally, all of which is freely available at www.saveallypally.com

• Alexandra Palace: Gambling back on the Agenda

THE latest news from Alexandra Palace is that there is an Application in with the Council for a premises licence under the Gambling Act 2005. It happens to be for a permanent track betting licence. But it is more evidence of the determination of Haringey Council’s favoured development partner (Firoka) to bring gambling of one kind or another into the Alexandra Palace Trust – a registered Charity – with Council connivance.

The first Application for this gambling licence was made by Firoka (Alexandra Palace) Ltd. on 9 November 2007 for Track Betting and the licence would cover betting services provided for the World Darts Championship and other sporting events held at the hall at the Premises.

It is questionable as to whether Firoka should be in Alexandra Palace (AP) at all – and more questionable after the AP sale Order was quashed by the High Court. But, less than five weeks after the High Court quashed the sale of AP to Firoka, that same company applied for a permanent track betting licence at AP. On their original application form, they confirmed that they (Firoka the applicant) had the right to occupy the premises.

This was a little too rich, even for Haringey Council. Haringey’s Chief Executive confirmed recently that Firoka Management

“was given a very short term licence to trade at the Palace”

although what is meant by very short term, we do not know.

The secretive Alexandra Palace Trading Ltd. (APTL) is a company wholly owned by the Trust. And so Firoka’s cronies in APTL are now applying in that name for a licence which will doubtless be used by Firoka. APTL is now a shell, having prematurely handed over to Firoka both management and the income from the Palace, in return for – nothing. Is this not another example of the inherent conflict of interest in having a Charitable Trust board comprised of political appointees who implement Council policy?

The gambling Application makes a mockery of the licensing process. The puppet company of a puppet board of the ruling party, seeks permission to have permanent gambling in the principal asset of a Charitable Trust, whose beneficiaries are all of us. In effect, the Council is asking itself for permission.

Can this be regarded as good governance, an arms-length transaction or free from conflict of interest? Does anyone imagine that the public consultation about APTL-Firoka’s gambling licence will be any more sincere or effective than the public Consultation over the sale of the entire building? The so-called Consultation about the sale was condemned by the High Court as being fatally flawed, it was quashed and costs were awarded against the Council. The Council put much pressure on the Charity Commission to ensure that public consultation was limited, unfair and uninformed.

If there are submissions from the public about the gambling Application, what is the betting (off-track of course) that any objections will be ruled vexatious? Objections will be ignored because it is almost a forgone conclusion that Haringey will award itself a licence. Does anyone doubt that this is an incestuous relationship and that Haringey will award itself this licence? I’m sure that APTC and the Council are all in the same team; let us wait and see how independent is Haringey’s ‘Licensing Team’.

The intention of Haringey’s partner (Firoka) is to demolish the world’s first television studios and we are expected to be reassured on that score because it would need a Planning Application that requires approval by Haringey’s Planning committee. Does anyone believe Haringey will not give their favoured development partner all the approvals they demand?

Haringey continues to try to force through the sale, most aspects of which remain shrouded in obsessive secrecy. Is the gambling licence application another example of the corruption of normal processes that we now expect from this Council over AP?

How many more irregularities before the Charity Commission steps in to remove the current incompetent Trustees and replaces them with committed, independent Trustees of integrity?

GAMBLING: Firoka and the Casino
THE other manifestation of Firoka’s strong desire for gambling at AP is the Casino. The chairman of the Trust board has claimed that it was a myth that a Casino was ever a part of Firoka’s proposals. (Firoka certainly wants a Casino, although a Super casino now appears less likely.) A Casino – later described by Cllr. Cooke merely as an ‘option’ – is clearly shown on Firoka’s architects plans in the AP basement.

Cllr. Cooke said “One thing that needs to be highlighted is that since the implementation of the Gambling Act, the casino is no longer a realistic option.” Another thing that needs to be highlighted is that Cllr. Cooke sees the Casino option solely in terms of whether or not it is able to proceed under an Act of Parliament.

Is Cllr. Cooke relieved or disappointed on behalf of Haringey’s favoured partner, that the Gambling Act makes Firoka’s casino no longer a realistic option? Is he relieved because of the potential embarrassment or disappointed that Gordon Brown has stopped further Super Casinos? Would he prefer that the casino was a realistic option? Prostitution might fit with the casino and a hotel but there’s probably an Act of Parliament implemented that means that that too was not “a realistic option.” Money laundering, drug dealing and organized crime might also fit well with the Casino.

A small scale casino is allowed under current legislation so some sort of casino is a real possibility. On the gambling licence application form, it is just another checkbox: Casinos come in three sizes: Regional, Large or Small. Which size is favoured by our Charitable Trust?

Does the Chairman see casinos as desirable in Muswell Hill or anywhere else in Haringey? Does he believe that Firoka’s desired Casino – and all that would go with it – would not promote social problems? Those seems to be the prior questions. Politicians sometimes show moral courage and leadership. It’s troubling that gambling is seen only in managerial terms rather than in any moral context, the more so from the representative of a party that prides itself on looking after the more vulnerable in society.

Although Councillor Cooke has claimed to represent the position of the SaveAllyPally group, he is careful to avoid mentioning its principal address www.saveallypally.com which has copies of the evidence from the High Court case that he wants to avoid publicizing. Why did his Council have costs awarded against them in the High Court over AP? That web site also contains the goals of the campaign and much additional information.

Haringey Council has prostituted itself over the sale of Alexandra Palace, but they are not a very business-like prostitute – the reported sale price of £1.5 million will pay for just 24 months’ worth of regular additional costs they have agreed to take over (the park and road upkeep), before the extra costs become a burden on Haringey’s long-suffering ratepayers. After spending £100 million on AP over the years, it doesn’t seem like a good deal to flog it for just £1.5 million.

Sent to local newspapers on
20 November 2007