Come on, read the articles on the issue, BBC articles online, the title of the BBC documentary. It's all about West Ham and free rides, West Ham getting a leg up, West Ham doing this, West Ham doing that. This whole sorry saga has cost the taxpayer millions, agreed. But why is no one in the media investigating the flaws in the whole initial process/design of the stadium that resulted in conversion costs of over 270 million ? West Ham have won their bidding process and a judicial review has already declared that the tender process was open, fair and transparent. The LLDC may have negotiated badly or maybe they fell for West Ham playing hardball or bluffing. The LLDC could still have walked away from a deal if they thought West Ham weren't contributing enough. They still signed the deal. Why ? Well, let's have that bloody enquiry and find out. I understand that rival clubs ideally would want West Ham to pay for the whole conversion upfront, pay ten milllion a year in rent, give all the naming rights to the taxpayer and still not own anything, I do appreciate that sentiment from a rival club's fans' view. I'd still like to hear who'd be the right person or institution to determine what constitutes a fair deal. It surely cannot be any of the other clubs as they'd be obviously biased in their views and have a vested interest to make West Ham pay as much as possible. Would you be happy with the European Commission setting terms for a fair deal ? And would you accept their ruling ? Or FIFA's ? Or the Premier League's ? And would you actually accept their verdict ? You may all consider it to be an unfair deal. Well, maybe it is simply the best deal the LLDC could get under the circumstances. If this was not a rival football club benefitting, but some other kind of business benefitting from renting a public asset, nobody would bat an eyelash, just look at how much public money is being wasted with people being not really that bothered overall.
Come on, read the articles on the issue, BBC articles online, the title of the BBC documentary. It's all about West Ham and free rides, West Ham getting a leg up, West Ham doing this, West Ham doing that. This whole sorry saga has cost the taxpayer millions, agreed. But why is no one in the media investigating the flaws in the whole initial process/design of the stadium that resulted in conversion costs of over 270 million ? West Ham have won their bidding process and a judicial review has already declared that the tender process was open, fair and transparent. The LLDC may have negotiated badly or maybe they fell for West Ham playing hardball or bluffing. The LLDC could still have walked away from a deal if they thought West Ham weren't contributing enough. They still signed the deal. Why ? Well, let's have that bloody enquiry and find out. I understand that rival clubs ideally would want West Ham to pay for the whole conversion upfront, pay ten milllion a year in rent, give all the naming rights to the taxpayer and still not own anything, I do appreciate that sentiment from a rival club's fans' view. I'd still like to hear who'd be the right person or institution to determine what constitutes a fair deal. It surely cannot be any of the other clubs as they'd be obviously biased in their views and have a vested interest to make West Ham pay as much as possible. Would you be happy with the European Commission setting terms for a fair deal ? And would you accept their ruling ? Or FIFA's ? Or the Premier League's ? And would you actually accept their verdict ? You may all consider it to be an unfair deal. Well, maybe it is simply the best deal the LLDC could get under the circumstances. If this was not a rival football club benefitting, but some other kind of business benefitting from renting a public asset, nobody would bat an eyelash, just look at how much public money is being wasted with people being not really that bothered overall.
The best deal they could get? This is exactly what we are trying to find out
Come on, read the articles on the issue, BBC articles online, the title of the BBC documentary. It's all about West Ham and free rides, West Ham getting a leg up, West Ham doing this, West Ham doing that. This whole sorry saga has cost the taxpayer millions, agreed. But why is no one in the media investigating the flaws in the whole initial process/design of the stadium that resulted in conversion costs of over 270 million ? West Ham have won their bidding process and a judicial review has already declared that the tender process was open, fair and transparent. The LLDC may have negotiated badly or maybe they fell for West Ham playing hardball or bluffing. The LLDC could still have walked away from a deal if they thought West Ham weren't contributing enough. They still signed the deal. Why ? Well, let's have that bloody enquiry and find out. I understand that rival clubs ideally would want West Ham to pay for the whole conversion upfront, pay ten milllion a year in rent, give all the naming rights to the taxpayer and still not own anything, I do appreciate that sentiment from a rival club's fans' view. I'd still like to hear who'd be the right person or institution to determine what constitutes a fair deal. It surely cannot be any of the other clubs as they'd be obviously biased in their views and have a vested interest to make West Ham pay as much as possible. Would you be happy with the European Commission setting terms for a fair deal ? And would you accept their ruling ? Or FIFA's ? Or the Premier League's ? And would you actually accept their verdict ? You may all consider it to be an unfair deal. Well, maybe it is simply the best deal the LLDC could get under the circumstances. If this was not a rival football club benefitting, but some other kind of business benefitting from renting a public asset, nobody would bat an eyelash, just look at how much public money is being wasted with people being not really that bothered overall.
How about the full proceeds of the sale of the Boleyn Ground, £4m a year rent and cover all match day and associated costs yourselves as a starter...
I just get the hump that West Ham are being painted as the villain here when they only did (as far as we know) waht any other club would have done in the same situation - negotiating the best deal they could. If there is indeed dirt to dig up, fair enough. Until they find something though, we have to assume everything has been done correctly.
Who is painting West Ham "as the villain" ?
Nobody is, I agree. I think it's rather Wet Spam acting the victim!!
The blame here, if blame can be attributed following a full and transparent review of how tax payers money has been spent, will lie with LLDC/Bozo BoJo/politicians. If neglect in a public office can be shown to have taken place then as far as I'm concerned any contract between LLDC and WH should be thrown out.
Misfeasance in public office is probably the way to go. I believe there is no need to prove something was illegal, merely improper.
Come on, read the articles on the issue, BBC articles online, the title of the BBC documentary. It's all about West Ham and free rides, West Ham getting a leg up, West Ham doing this, West Ham doing that. This whole sorry saga has cost the taxpayer millions, agreed. But why is no one in the media investigating the flaws in the whole initial process/design of the stadium that resulted in conversion costs of over 270 million ? West Ham have won their bidding process and a judicial review has already declared that the tender process was open, fair and transparent. The LLDC may have negotiated badly or maybe they fell for West Ham playing hardball or bluffing. The LLDC could still have walked away from a deal if they thought West Ham weren't contributing enough. They still signed the deal. Why ? Well, let's have that bloody enquiry and find out. I understand that rival clubs ideally would want West Ham to pay for the whole conversion upfront, pay ten milllion a year in rent, give all the naming rights to the taxpayer and still not own anything, I do appreciate that sentiment from a rival club's fans' view. I'd still like to hear who'd be the right person or institution to determine what constitutes a fair deal. It surely cannot be any of the other clubs as they'd be obviously biased in their views and have a vested interest to make West Ham pay as much as possible. Would you be happy with the European Commission setting terms for a fair deal ? And would you accept their ruling ? Or FIFA's ? Or the Premier League's ? And would you actually accept their verdict ? You may all consider it to be an unfair deal. Well, maybe it is simply the best deal the LLDC could get under the circumstances. If this was not a rival football club benefitting, but some other kind of business benefitting from renting a public asset, nobody would bat an eyelash, just look at how much public money is being wasted with people being not really that bothered overall.
GermanEastEnder (if that is your real name), your argument is clear that you think the details of the deal should be made public. That is what the petition is asking for.
Come on, read the articles on the issue, BBC articles online, the title of the BBC documentary. It's all about West Ham and free rides, West Ham getting a leg up, West Ham doing this, West Ham doing that. This whole sorry saga has cost the taxpayer millions, agreed. But why is no one in the media investigating the flaws in the whole initial process/design of the stadium that resulted in conversion costs of over 270 million ? West Ham have won their bidding process and a judicial review has already declared that the tender process was open, fair and transparent. The LLDC may have negotiated badly or maybe they fell for West Ham playing hardball or bluffing. The LLDC could still have walked away from a deal if they thought West Ham weren't contributing enough. They still signed the deal. Why ? Well, let's have that bloody enquiry and find out. I understand that rival clubs ideally would want West Ham to pay for the whole conversion upfront, pay ten milllion a year in rent, give all the naming rights to the taxpayer and still not own anything, I do appreciate that sentiment from a rival club's fans' view. I'd still like to hear who'd be the right person or institution to determine what constitutes a fair deal. It surely cannot be any of the other clubs as they'd be obviously biased in their views and have a vested interest to make West Ham pay as much as possible. Would you be happy with the European Commission setting terms for a fair deal ? And would you accept their ruling ? Or FIFA's ? Or the Premier League's ? And would you actually accept their verdict ? You may all consider it to be an unfair deal. Well, maybe it is simply the best deal the LLDC could get under the circumstances. If this was not a rival football club benefitting, but some other kind of business benefitting from renting a public asset, nobody would bat an eyelash, just look at how much public money is being wasted with people being not really that bothered overall.
Playing the victim again.
Yes, West Ham have got away with blue murder - in much the same way Liverpool got away with blue murder on Monday against Bournemouth. Similarly, that wasn't their fault but rather poor judgement/incompetence by the people in charge.
Come on, read the articles on the issue, BBC articles online, the title of the BBC documentary. It's all about West Ham and free rides, West Ham getting a leg up, West Ham doing this, West Ham doing that. This whole sorry saga has cost the taxpayer millions, agreed. But why is no one in the media investigating the flaws in the whole initial process/design of the stadium that resulted in conversion costs of over 270 million ? West Ham have won their bidding process and a judicial review has already declared that the tender process was open, fair and transparent. The LLDC may have negotiated badly or maybe they fell for West Ham playing hardball or bluffing. The LLDC could still have walked away from a deal if they thought West Ham weren't contributing enough. They still signed the deal. Why ? Well, let's have that bloody enquiry and find out. I understand that rival clubs ideally would want West Ham to pay for the whole conversion upfront, pay ten milllion a year in rent, give all the naming rights to the taxpayer and still not own anything, I do appreciate that sentiment from a rival club's fans' view. I'd still like to hear who'd be the right person or institution to determine what constitutes a fair deal. It surely cannot be any of the other clubs as they'd be obviously biased in their views and have a vested interest to make West Ham pay as much as possible. Would you be happy with the European Commission setting terms for a fair deal ? And would you accept their ruling ? Or FIFA's ? Or the Premier League's ? And would you actually accept their verdict ? You may all consider it to be an unfair deal. Well, maybe it is simply the best deal the LLDC could get under the circumstances. If this was not a rival football club benefitting, but some other kind of business benefitting from renting a public asset, nobody would bat an eyelash, just look at how much public money is being wasted with people being not really that bothered overall.
Again well argued, but again falling down in crucial areas. On tonight's BBC report David Lammy MP acknowledges that West Ham are a commercial organisation. He is looking to hold to account the people who are paid by us the taxpayer. If you are a journalist how can you not report what a good deal West Ham have? and it was the BBC's job to explain just how big a gift the overheads were. Otherwise the ordinary viewer won't realise. After all those idiots at the LLDC didn't.
Your owners haven't and don't help themselves, dishing out money to the Tories, Brady going for a peerage. Then blanking all coverage of the issue. The media don't like that sort of thing. Including the right wing media. Let me tell you something about the documentary. The programme director told us he was actually commissioned to do a touchy feely What a great legacy story. But after being strung a long about co-operating for 3-4 weeks they all blanked him. Your club, the LLDC, Newham. And of course being a professional, a BAFTA award winner as it happens, he said, hang on a minute, there's different story here. So if you don't like that documentary, the blame for it lies squarely with your club
Of course the LLDC could not walk away from the deal. That is why they exist, to cut the deal. Boris would never have let them. He needed his legacy and to a timetable.
I won't sign the petition. Which in my view you should have started a lot earlier. I know you have done stuff for a while, but the petition as such has been started less than 12 months before West Ham move in. This thing has been allowed to gone on for far too long. You are aware there is a binding contract between the LLDC and West Ham ? Unless that contract came about in an unlawful way the terms of the deal cannot be changed on a whim without West Ham having the right to sue. By all accounts, let the Daily Mail (what a quality newspaper that is) send out their armada of investigative journalists, let them try to dig up dirt and make heads roll in the aftermath of it. That is all your good right. It just remains to be seen if your enquiry will result in getting the terms of the deal changed. It's not as easy as respraying a car. You have a hard fight ahead here. Because surely the LLDC and West Ham will start fighting back at one point. But I'm looking very much forward to the results of an enquiry and the stellar work of the Daily Mail journalists.
I won't sign the petition. Which in my view you should have started a lot earlier. I know you have done stuff for a while, but the petition as such has been started less than 12 months before West Ham move in. This thing has been allowed to gone on for far too long. You are aware there is a binding contract between the LLDC and West Ham ? Unless that contract came about in an unlawful way the terms of the deal cannot be changed on a whim without West Ham having the right to sue. By all accounts, let the Daily Mail (what a quality newspaper that is) send out their armada of investigative journalists, let them try to dig up dirt and make heads roll in the aftermath of it. That is all your good right. It just remains to be seen if your enquiry will result in getting the terms of the deal changed. It's not as easy as respraying a car. You have a hard fight ahead here. Because surely the LLDC and West Ham will start fighting back at one point. But I'm looking very much forward to the results of an enquiry and the stellar work of the Daily Mail journalists.
There are very many grounds for declaring a contract void ab initio, most of which do not involve unlawful acts. An open review of the actual contract entered into by WH and LLDC, and the process by which that contract was created would resolve the issue. But it appears neither party want to expose the contract to that level of scrutiny - which does beg the question .....
Are my eyes deceiving me or is a West Ham fan suggesting the media are treating their club unfairly??? Half of Fleet St supports the club and until now they have had an extremely easy ride. This campaign had been ongoing for many months before the main stream media woke up and realised there's a lot more to this than meets the eye.
Come on, read the articles on the issue, BBC articles online, the title of the BBC documentary. It's all about West Ham and free rides, West Ham getting a leg up, West Ham doing this, West Ham doing that. This whole sorry saga has cost the taxpayer millions, agreed. But why is no one in the media investigating the flaws in the whole initial process/design of the stadium that resulted in conversion costs of over 270 million ? West Ham have won their bidding process and a judicial review has already declared that the tender process was open, fair and transparent. The LLDC may have negotiated badly or maybe they fell for West Ham playing hardball or bluffing. The LLDC could still have walked away from a deal if they thought West Ham weren't contributing enough. They still signed the deal. Why ? Well, let's have that bloody enquiry and find out. I understand that rival clubs ideally would want West Ham to pay for the whole conversion upfront, pay ten milllion a year in rent, give all the naming rights to the taxpayer and still not own anything, I do appreciate that sentiment from a rival club's fans' view. I'd still like to hear who'd be the right person or institution to determine what constitutes a fair deal. It surely cannot be any of the other clubs as they'd be obviously biased in their views and have a vested interest to make West Ham pay as much as possible. Would you be happy with the European Commission setting terms for a fair deal ? And would you accept their ruling ? Or FIFA's ? Or the Premier League's ? And would you actually accept their verdict ? You may all consider it to be an unfair deal. Well, maybe it is simply the best deal the LLDC could get under the circumstances. If this was not a rival football club benefitting, but some other kind of business benefitting from renting a public asset, nobody would bat an eyelash, just look at how much public money is being wasted with people being not really that bothered overall.
From this, it appears you might want transparency over the whole thing. Which is what the petition calls for, given the amount of redacted information when the information was requested via the Freedom of Information Act...
In which case, sign the petition, because that is what it calls for.
We might be unhappy, yes, but at the moment the vast majority of us are unhappy not solely because of the deal, but because the deal is unclear.
Can we also take this opportunity to pause and say welcome and good evening to both Davids, Boris, those involved at LLDC, maybe Seb himself and of course Lady Brady as she should be correctly addressed. I have no doubt all those involved are being regularly updated as this issue gathers momentum.
We very much look forward to your explanation of the circumstances of the deal at some point in the near future.
Come on, read the articles on the issue, BBC articles online, the title of the BBC documentary. It's all about West Ham and free rides, West Ham getting a leg up, West Ham doing this, West Ham doing that. This whole sorry saga has cost the taxpayer millions, agreed. But why is no one in the media investigating the flaws in the whole initial process/design of the stadium that resulted in conversion costs of over 270 million ? West Ham have won their bidding process and a judicial review has already declared that the tender process was open, fair and transparent. The LLDC may have negotiated badly or maybe they fell for West Ham playing hardball or bluffing. The LLDC could still have walked away from a deal if they thought West Ham weren't contributing enough. They still signed the deal. Why ? Well, let's have that bloody enquiry and find out. I understand that rival clubs ideally would want West Ham to pay for the whole conversion upfront, pay ten milllion a year in rent, give all the naming rights to the taxpayer and still not own anything, I do appreciate that sentiment from a rival club's fans' view. I'd still like to hear who'd be the right person or institution to determine what constitutes a fair deal. It surely cannot be any of the other clubs as they'd be obviously biased in their views and have a vested interest to make West Ham pay as much as possible. Would you be happy with the European Commission setting terms for a fair deal ? And would you accept their ruling ? Or FIFA's ? Or the Premier League's ? And would you actually accept their verdict ? You may all consider it to be an unfair deal. Well, maybe it is simply the best deal the LLDC could get under the circumstances. If this was not a rival football club benefitting, but some other kind of business benefitting from renting a public asset, nobody would bat an eyelash, just look at how much public money is being wasted with people being not really that bothered overall.
How about the full proceeds of the sale of the Boleyn Ground, £4m a year rent and cover all match day and associated costs yourselves as a starter...
Can we also take this opportunity to pause and say welcome and good evening to both Davids, Boris, those involved at LLDC, maybe Seb himself and of course Lady Brady as she should be correctly addressed. I have no doubt all those involved are being regularly updated as this issue gathers momentum.
We very much look forward to your explanation of the circumstances of the deal at some point in the near future.
I won't sign the petition. Which in my view you should have started a lot earlier. I know you have done stuff for a while, but the petition as such has been started less than 12 months before West Ham move in. This thing has been allowed to gone on for far too long.
If WHU/LLDC had revealed the contract terms when it was signed then you may have a valid point. If consequential problems ultimately come WHU's way at an inconvenient time then it is their own stupid fault for trying to keep it hidden. You really can't blame those doing the digging.
I won't sign the petition. Which in my view you should have started a lot earlier. I know you have done stuff for a while, but the petition as such has been started less than 12 months before West Ham move in. This thing has been allowed to gone on for far too long. You are aware there is a binding contract between the LLDC and West Ham ? Unless that contract came about in an unlawful way the terms of the deal cannot be changed on a whim without West Ham having the right to sue. By all accounts, let the Daily Mail (what a quality newspaper that is) send out their armada of investigative journalists, let them try to dig up dirt and make heads roll in the aftermath of it. That is all your good right. It just remains to be seen if your enquiry will result in getting the terms of the deal changed. It's not as easy as respraying a car. You have a hard fight ahead here. Because surely the LLDC and West Ham will start fighting back at one point. But I'm looking very much forward to the results of an enquiry and the stellar work of the Daily Mail journalists.
My understanding is that Barry Hearn and Orient tried to dig into this considerably earlier. For whatever reason they failed to get very far. This matter has only gained traction with the intervention and cooperation of other clubs.
I don't blame West Ham for this but it is a fact that the media traditionally give the club an easier ride than others. Hence the inability of "plucky little Leyton Orient" to make a dent on the "1966 World Cup winners" when it came to this matter.
Come on, read the articles on the issue, BBC articles online, the title of the BBC documentary. It's all about West Ham and free rides, West Ham getting a leg up, West Ham doing this, West Ham doing that. This whole sorry saga has cost the taxpayer millions, agreed. But why is no one in the media investigating the flaws in the whole initial process/design of the stadium that resulted in conversion costs of over 270 million ? West Ham have won their bidding process and a judicial review has already declared that the tender process was open, fair and transparent. The LLDC may have negotiated badly or maybe they fell for West Ham playing hardball or bluffing. The LLDC could still have walked away from a deal if they thought West Ham weren't contributing enough. They still signed the deal. Why ? Well, let's have that bloody enquiry and find out. I understand that rival clubs ideally would want West Ham to pay for the whole conversion upfront, pay ten milllion a year in rent, give all the naming rights to the taxpayer and still not own anything, I do appreciate that sentiment from a rival club's fans' view. I'd still like to hear who'd be the right person or institution to determine what constitutes a fair deal. It surely cannot be any of the other clubs as they'd be obviously biased in their views and have a vested interest to make West Ham pay as much as possible. Would you be happy with the European Commission setting terms for a fair deal ? And would you accept their ruling ? Or FIFA's ? Or the Premier League's ? And would you actually accept their verdict ? You may all consider it to be an unfair deal. Well, maybe it is simply the best deal the LLDC could get under the circumstances. If this was not a rival football club benefitting, but some other kind of business benefitting from renting a public asset, nobody would bat an eyelash, just look at how much public money is being wasted with people being not really that bothered overall.
Come on, read the articles on the issue, BBC articles online, the title of the BBC documentary. It's all about West Ham and free rides, West Ham getting a leg up, West Ham doing this, West Ham doing that. This whole sorry saga has cost the taxpayer millions, agreed. But why is no one in the media investigating the flaws in the whole initial process/design of the stadium that resulted in conversion costs of over 270 million ? West Ham have won their bidding process and a judicial review has already declared that the tender process was open, fair and transparent. The LLDC may have negotiated badly or maybe they fell for West Ham playing hardball or bluffing. The LLDC could still have walked away from a deal if they thought West Ham weren't contributing enough. They still signed the deal. Why ? Well, let's have that bloody enquiry and find out. I understand that rival clubs ideally would want West Ham to pay for the whole conversion upfront, pay ten milllion a year in rent, give all the naming rights to the taxpayer and still not own anything, I do appreciate that sentiment from a rival club's fans' view. I'd still like to hear who'd be the right person or institution to determine what constitutes a fair deal. It surely cannot be any of the other clubs as they'd be obviously biased in their views and have a vested interest to make West Ham pay as much as possible. Would you be happy with the European Commission setting terms for a fair deal ? And would you accept their ruling ? Or FIFA's ? Or the Premier League's ? And would you actually accept their verdict ? You may all consider it to be an unfair deal. Well, maybe it is simply the best deal the LLDC could get under the circumstances. If this was not a rival football club benefitting, but some other kind of business benefitting from renting a public asset, nobody would bat an eyelash, just look at how much public money is being wasted with people being not really that bothered overall.
How about the full proceeds of the sale of the Boleyn Ground, £4m a year rent and cover all match day and associated costs yourselves as a starter...
Plus at least 50% of conversion costs.
Didn't Man City also give a cut to the council for any tickets they sold over the capacity of Maine Rd?
Half of Fleet Street is pro West Ham ? Shame then you don't get to hear from them that often. There surely isn't a lot of pro West Ham reporting in the media. You will say that is because there is no reason for positive reporting hen it comes to West Ham and the OS. You have enough signatures already, so the government needs to discuss a public enquiry now, fair enough.
Comments
It's all about West Ham and free rides, West Ham getting a leg up, West Ham doing this, West Ham doing that.
This whole sorry saga has cost the taxpayer millions, agreed. But why is no one in the media investigating the flaws in the whole initial process/design of the stadium that resulted in conversion costs of over 270 million ?
West Ham have won their bidding process and a judicial review has already declared that the tender process was open, fair and transparent.
The LLDC may have negotiated badly or maybe they fell for West Ham playing hardball or bluffing.
The LLDC could still have walked away from a deal if they thought West Ham weren't contributing enough.
They still signed the deal. Why ? Well, let's have that bloody enquiry and find out.
I understand that rival clubs ideally would want West Ham to pay for the whole conversion upfront, pay ten milllion a year in rent, give all the naming rights to the taxpayer and still not own anything, I do appreciate that sentiment from a rival club's fans' view.
I'd still like to hear who'd be the right person or institution to determine what constitutes a fair deal.
It surely cannot be any of the other clubs as they'd be obviously biased in their views and have a vested interest to make West Ham pay as much as possible.
Would you be happy with the European Commission setting terms for a fair deal ?
And would you accept their ruling ? Or FIFA's ? Or the Premier League's ?
And would you actually accept their verdict ? You may all consider it to be an unfair deal.
Well, maybe it is simply the best deal the LLDC could get under the circumstances.
If this was not a rival football club benefitting, but some other kind of business benefitting from renting a public asset, nobody would bat an eyelash, just look at how much public money is being wasted with people being not really that bothered overall.
If West Ham love blowing bubbles so much, perhaps they'll rename themselves Olympiakos
Sign the petition and move on.
Yes, West Ham have got away with blue murder - in much the same way Liverpool got away with blue murder on Monday against Bournemouth. Similarly, that wasn't their fault but rather poor judgement/incompetence by the people in charge.
Your owners haven't and don't help themselves, dishing out money to the Tories, Brady going for a peerage. Then blanking all coverage of the issue. The media don't like that sort of thing. Including the right wing media. Let me tell you something about the documentary. The programme director told us he was actually commissioned to do a touchy feely What a great legacy story. But after being strung a long about co-operating for 3-4 weeks they all blanked him. Your club, the LLDC, Newham. And of course being a professional, a BAFTA award winner as it happens, he said, hang on a minute, there's different story here. So if you don't like that documentary, the blame for it lies squarely with your club
Of course the LLDC could not walk away from the deal. That is why they exist, to cut the deal. Boris would never have let them. He needed his legacy and to a timetable.
This thing has been allowed to gone on for far too long. You are aware there is a binding contract between the LLDC and West Ham ? Unless that contract came about in an unlawful way the terms of the deal cannot be changed on a whim without West Ham having the right to sue.
By all accounts, let the Daily Mail (what a quality newspaper that is) send out their armada of investigative journalists, let them try to dig up dirt and make heads roll in the aftermath of it. That is all your good right.
It just remains to be seen if your enquiry will result in getting the terms of the deal changed.
It's not as easy as respraying a car. You have a hard fight ahead here. Because surely the LLDC and West Ham will start fighting back at one point. But I'm looking very much forward to the results of an enquiry and the stellar work of the Daily Mail journalists.
In which case, sign the petition, because that is what it calls for.
We might be unhappy, yes, but at the moment the vast majority of us are unhappy not solely because of the deal, but because the deal is unclear.
We very much look forward to your explanation of the circumstances of the deal at some point in the near future.
I don't blame West Ham for this but it is a fact that the media traditionally give the club an easier ride than others. Hence the inability of "plucky little Leyton Orient" to make a dent on the "1966 World Cup winners" when it came to this matter.
Give it up
@prague there is a document linked at the bottom of the page, have you seen this..??