@prague there is a document linked at the bottom of the page, have you seen this..??
Sure, he has been brandishing it around various sites, but he clearly reads only the bits he thinks are supportive, and doesn't want to hear the other shit we have uncovered. If you think there is stuff there that is new, and weakens our case, let me know and I'll happily respond.
Like you, I read it and thought that it only contained some minor points and not all of the other stuff that has recently come to life.
Sure, really helps if people alert us to anything they see.
We've wiped the floor with them media wise today, but they will look to hit back. Everyone please keep a look out for any negative stuff in proper media (I mean, not West Ham sites. Or ITTV :-) ).
For example the Trust copy of the BBC doc was on my Vimeo account. Earlier this evening I got an email from Vimeo telling me my account was closed because I'd been a naughty boy. I went straight back to them saying I had the directors blessing to host the BBC doc, the only thing I have uploaded (not least because I am in it). They quickly backed down and restored it. But who asked them to take it down? its only had 80 views. They wouldn't tell me...
There's a lot of money at stake here. People won't let it go easily.
Are. I try to give most fans (barring Spanners and Nigels) the benefit of the doubt. Until proven otherwise. This has just done it for West Ham for me.
@prague there is a document linked at the bottom of the page, have you seen this..??
Sure, he has been brandishing it around various sites, but he clearly reads only the bits he thinks are supportive, and doesn't want to hear the other shit we have uncovered. If you think there is stuff there that is new, and weakens our case, let me know and I'll happily respond.
Like you, I read it and thought that it only contained some minor points and not all of the other stuff that has recently come to life.
Sure, really helps if people alert us to anything they see.
We've wiped the floor with them media wise today, but they will look to hit back. Everyone please keep a look out for any negative stuff in proper media (I mean, not West Ham sites. Or ITTV :-) ).
For example the Trust copy of the BBC doc was on my Vimeo account. Earlier this evening I got an email from Vimeo telling me my account was closed because I'd been a naughty boy. I went straight back to them saying I had the directors blessing to host the BBC doc, the only thing I have uploaded (not least because I am in it). They quickly backed down and restored it. But who asked them to take it down? its only had 80 views. They wouldn't tell me...
There's a lot of money at stake here. People won't let it go easily.
You won't be surprised to hear that I found the Evening Standard article refreshingly balanced. If you've read it it's also very critical about the redacted bits of the deal and the secrecy attached to it all. While also arguing why West Ham moving in there under the circumstances makes a lot of sense. Which of course brings us back to the tough issue of determining what is a fair deal under the circumstances.
You won't be surprised to hear that I found the Evening Standard article refreshingly balanced. If you've read it it's also very critical about the redacted bits of the deal and the secrecy attached to it all. While also arguing why West Ham moving in there under the circumstances makes a lot of sense. Which of course brings us back to the tough issue of determining what is a fair deal under the circumstances.
Which article are you looking at ? Apart from reprinting statements from both sides the article linked above by EastStand contains no comments from the ES correspondent.
You won't be surprised to hear that I found the Evening Standard article refreshingly balanced. If you've read it it's also very critical about the redacted bits of the deal and the secrecy attached to it all. While also arguing why West Ham moving in there under the circumstances makes a lot of sense. Which of course brings us back to the tough issue of determining what is a fair deal under the circumstances.
Well let's see what the deal actually was/is and then a valued judgement can be made. Let's get rid of the secrecy.
Yes it does make sense for West Ham to be the tenants and I have no issues whatsoever with West ham using the OS - but as a taxpayer I want to know how much/little it's actually costing them and whether or not that gives them an unfair advantage and/or has short-changed the taxpayer.
Government subsidies are not designed to be used for profitable 'for profit' private organisations - that ultimately give them an unfair advantage over their competition. That would clearly be a misuse of taxpayers funds.
A full disclosure will not harm West Ham as long as there's nothing to hide.
There's another ES article for today which says, basically, "West Ham were going to get the ground anyway so stop complaining" about 48 times. Obviously included in the early editions that go to Germany.
I have found it depressing that even the decent West Ham fans i know seem to have no issue with the tax payer funding their private business, so they can move into a soulless mega stadium, watching a slightly better class of players on the pitch(from a distance) sure but that is ultimately about increasing the wealth of two millionaires when they sell the London brand to a Chinese/Russian/American/Middle Eastern(take your pick) consortium within a couple of seasons.
You won't be surprised to hear that I found the Evening Standard article refreshingly balanced. If you've read it it's also very critical about the redacted bits of the deal and the secrecy attached to it all. While also arguing why West Ham moving in there under the circumstances makes a lot of sense. Which of course brings us back to the tough issue of determining what is a fair deal under the circumstances.
You obviously don't want the contract facts to come out otherwise you would sign the petition. So, why don't we consider something we do know. WHU supporters appear to be pinning their hopes on paying a 'fair rent' for hiring the stadium up to 26 days a year. The retractable seats are being installed for WHU. We believe that they are manually operated, a one way process taking 7 days. This effectively makes it WHU's stadium for almost 10 months. This is confirmed in this document where it states that athletics will only be possible from third week of June till end of July (I assume the delay is for relaying the pitch).
So, if it is rented for only 26 days, what do you envisage the football-configured stadium being used for during those 10 months ? I can't see a rugby club moving in and we can rule out athletics and cricket.
Something that hasn't been raised so far is the installation and maintenance of the pitch. Not specifically the pitch but the under soil heating which I assume is mandatory for a PL club. I can't see any other event using it so it can only be for WHU's sole use.
PA have you also contacted Southend and Dagenham's supporter's trusts if they have them? Has there been any contact with West Ham's as I imagine some of their fans can't be happy with it all.
@prague there is a document linked at the bottom of the page, have you seen this..??
Sure, he has been brandishing it around various sites, but he clearly reads only the bits he thinks are supportive, and doesn't want to hear the other shit we have uncovered. If you think there is stuff there that is new, and weakens our case, let me know and I'll happily respond.
Like you, I read it and thought that it only contained some minor points and not all of the other stuff that has recently come to life.
Sure, really helps if people alert us to anything they see.
We've wiped the floor with them media wise today, but they will look to hit back. Everyone please keep a look out for any negative stuff in proper media (I mean, not West Ham sites. Or ITTV :-) ).
For example the Trust copy of the BBC doc was on my Vimeo account. Earlier this evening I got an email from Vimeo telling me my account was closed because I'd been a naughty boy. I went straight back to them saying I had the directors blessing to host the BBC doc, the only thing I have uploaded (not least because I am in it). They quickly backed down and restored it. But who asked them to take it down? its only had 80 views. They wouldn't tell me...
There's a lot of money at stake here. People won't let it go easily.
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-33998299
Why does CAST have London/Kent on their twitter?
Where does 'kent' come in to it?
While also arguing why West Ham moving in there under the circumstances makes a lot of sense.
Which of course brings us back to the tough issue of determining what is a fair deal under the circumstances.
Yes it does make sense for West Ham to be the tenants and I have no issues whatsoever with West ham using the OS - but as a taxpayer I want to know how much/little it's actually costing them and whether or not that gives them an unfair advantage and/or has short-changed the taxpayer.
Government subsidies are not designed to be used for profitable 'for profit' private organisations - that ultimately give them an unfair advantage over their competition. That would clearly be a misuse of taxpayers funds.
A full disclosure will not harm West Ham as long as there's nothing to hide.
Link
So, if it is rented for only 26 days, what do you envisage the football-configured stadium being used for during those 10 months ? I can't see a rugby club moving in and we can rule out athletics and cricket.