Congratulations! You've achieved your main aim by the looks of it, the release of the entire details of the deal. However, I'm not sure you'll enjoy the potential consequences nearly quite as much. Unless unlawful stuff has happened when the deal was being negotiated and signed then there is no legal way to change the commercial terms of this deal. The LLDC and West Ham lawyers will have been through this. By publishing the commercial details however (as the LLDC have warned before) Vinci may not be able to negotiate the most lucrative deals for other future events in the OS, hence making less money back for the taxpayer than might have been possible with keeping those details secret. So in essence you would know all the details, but you would have harmed the taxpayers' purse with your actions. Would you still be happy with your campaign then ? Over and out!
Over and out?? You've had more retirements than Frank Sinatra!
Your point was covered by me and others about 20 pages ago - if the deal is deemed to have provided unlawful state aid to a private sector organisation then the contract can be voided. If the deal is clearly unfair to one party then again the deal can be voided as if it never happened. In fact a contract can be voided if it meets any of the following:
(1) it is illegal from the moment it is made; (2) it is legal but declared null by the courts because it violates a fundamental principle such as fairness, or is contrary to public policy; (3) it becomes void due to changes in law or in government policy; or (4) it has been fully performed.
Congratulations! You've achieved your main aim by the looks of it, the release of the entire details of the deal. However, I'm not sure you'll enjoy the potential consequences nearly quite as much. Unless unlawful stuff has happened when the deal was being negotiated and signed then there is no legal way to change the commercial terms of this deal. The LLDC and West Ham lawyers will have been through this. By publishing the commercial details however (as the LLDC have warned before) Vinci may not be able to negotiate the most lucrative deals for other future events in the OS, hence making less money back for the taxpayer than might have been possible with keeping those details secret. So in essence you would know all the details, but you would have harmed the taxpayers' purse with your actions. Would you still be happy with your campaign then ? Over and out!
Congratulations! You've achieved your main aim by the looks of it, the release of the entire details of the deal. However, I'm not sure you'll enjoy the potential consequences nearly quite as much. Unless unlawful stuff has happened when the deal was being negotiated and signed then there is no legal way to change the commercial terms of this deal. The LLDC and West Ham lawyers will have been through this. By publishing the commercial details however (as the LLDC have warned before) Vinci may not be able to negotiate the most lucrative deals for other future events in the OS, hence making less money back for the taxpayer than might have been possible with keeping those details secret. So in essence you would know all the details, but you would have harmed the taxpayers' purse with your actions. Would you still be happy with your campaign then ? Over and out!
Sounds like sour grapes ...we will see
It's actually the official West Ham line. It was absolutely rejected by the Information Commissioner, who possess minds of their own. As I pointed out to our "German" friend before , if I'm a tobacconist renting some little kiosk at Bluewater, I don't expect the same terms as john Lewis, even if I came upon their full deal details. So change the record please, my dear Hamburger, you are in dire need of a new song.
Congratulations! You've achieved your main aim by the looks of it, the release of the entire details of the deal. However, I'm not sure you'll enjoy the potential consequences nearly quite as much. Unless unlawful stuff has happened when the deal was being negotiated and signed then there is no legal way to change the commercial terms of this deal. The LLDC and West Ham lawyers will have been through this. By publishing the commercial details however (as the LLDC have warned before) Vinci may not be able to negotiate the most lucrative deals for other future events in the OS, hence making less money back for the taxpayer than might have been possible with keeping those details secret. So in essence you would know all the details, but you would have harmed the taxpayers' purse with your actions. Would you still be happy with your campaign then ? Over and out!
This wouldn't be happening if West Ham we're paying their fair share.
Don't be pissing down our backs and telling us it's raining.
The CAS Trust stall will be behind the Covered End from 6.45 to 7.35 tonight. This is a good time to celebrate the good news by joining or renewing your membership. As the man above said - it's £5 well spent
I see that article was written by someone who grandly calls himself a Staff Writer. I presume it was our friend Mr Whetstone. There are more mistakes in it than in the average Tomas Repka appearance.
As a West Ham fan I'm more than happy that this ruling has been passed, and congratulate the fans groups for pushing for it. I fully expect it to exonerate the LLDC and West Ham in a deal that is mutually beneficial to both the taxpayers and the club, and then all the pathetic carping can stop. Cheers!
As a West Ham fan I'm more than happy that this ruling has been passed, and congratulate the fans groups for pushing for it. I fully expect it to exonerate the LLDC and West Ham in a deal that is mutually beneficial to both the taxpayers and the club, and then all the pathetic carping can stop. Cheers!
Pathetic carping, also known as the aim to obtain transparency.
As a West Ham fan I'm more than happy that this ruling has been passed, and congratulate the fans groups for pushing for it. I fully expect it to exonerate the LLDC and West Ham in a deal that is mutually beneficial to both the taxpayers and the club, and then all the pathetic carping can stop. Cheers!
How is spending over £270m to convert the ground for West Ham to use, that over the 99 years you have it, you won't pay back the initial outlay, be beneficial to the taxpayers?
As a West Ham fan I'm more than happy that this ruling has been passed, and congratulate the fans groups for pushing for it. I fully expect it to exonerate the LLDC and West Ham in a deal that is mutually beneficial to both the taxpayers and the club, and then all the pathetic carping can stop. Cheers!
How is spending over £270m to convert the ground for West Ham to use, that over the 99 years you have it, you won't pay back the initial outlay, be beneficial to the taxpayers?
You have no idea that West Ham wont pay back the initial outlay until the full details are released. When they are, it'll show that West Ham will more than pay back the outlay, and in fact the entire stadium costs, over the length of the lease.
How is spending over £270m to convert the ground for West Ham to use, that over the 99 years you have it, you won't pay back the initial outlay, be beneficial to the taxpayers?
You have no idea that West Ham wont pay back the initial outlay until the full details are released. When they are, it'll show that West Ham will more than pay back the outlay, and in fact the entire stadium costs, over the length of the lease.
Because the LLDC has pointed out before that it receives the lions share of stadium naming rights - which West Ham's tenancy will greatly enhance, the lions share of catering, which West Ham have given up, and that the rent more than covers the running costs. Altogether this amounts to a significant sum.
As I say well done on this - particularly CAST who have led the charge - and I look forward to seeing the full terms so that it can be shown once and or all that West Ham will pay its way and the club's name can stop being dragged through the mud over this.
No need to put Germany in inverted commas. I am German, born and bred in Hamburg if you must know. And I am not connected to the club hierarchy. As I said, congratulations on your success! I'm just not sure you will like what will happen as a result of it. As it may not exactly be what you may have in mind at all.
No need to put Germany in inverted commas. I am German, born and bred in Hamburg if you must know. And I am not connected to the club hierarchy. As I said, congratulations on your success! I'm just not sure you will like what will happen as a result of it. As it may not exactly be what you may have in mind at all.
But it will ...the contract will no longer be hidden, which is against public interests.
Because the LLDC has pointed out before that it receives the lions share of stadium naming rights - which West Ham's tenancy will greatly enhance, the lions share of catering, which West Ham have given up, and that the rent more than covers the running costs. Altogether this amounts to a significant sum.
Fine, then no problem seeing the contract which will prove what they are saying.
That's what I'm saying. You get your transparency (which is a good thing in general), but the result may well be West Ham paying the same as is agreed in the current deal but Vinci not being able to get the best possible deals for the taxpayer from other events going on in the OS as a result of this transparency.
That's what I'm saying. You get your transparency (which is a good thing in general), but the result may well be West Ham paying the same as is agreed in the current deal but Vinci not being able to get the best possible deals for the taxpayer from other events going on in the OS as a result of this transparency.
Then so be it ...this deal is too big to be hidden. And I am not convinced that Vinci receiving increased revenue will actually benefit the taxpayer ...hence the request to see the contract.
Must say I'm fully in agreement on this point: any one time or temporary tenant of the stadium cant expect to achieve the terms that a long term tenant has.
Must say I'm fully in agreement on this point: any one time or temporary tenant of the stadium cant expect to achieve the terms that a long term tenant has.
An appeal has to be on a matter of law to the High Court not an objection to the decision. It can't be overruled only referred back to the Commisiner for the judge's ruling to be taken into account.
Because the LLDC has pointed out before that it receives the lions share of stadium naming rights - which West Ham's tenancy will greatly enhance, the lions share of catering, which West Ham have given up, and that the rent more than covers the running costs. Altogether this amounts to a significant sum.
...... to cover refurbs/rebuilds every 20 or so years as well ?
Comments
Your point was covered by me and others about 20 pages ago - if the deal is deemed to have provided unlawful state aid to a private sector organisation then the contract can be voided. If the deal is clearly unfair to one party then again the deal can be voided as if it never happened. In fact a contract can be voided if it meets any of the following:
(1) it is illegal from the moment it is made;
(2) it is legal but declared null by the courts because it violates a fundamental principle such as fairness, or is contrary to public policy;
(3) it becomes void due to changes in law or in government policy; or
(4) it has been fully performed.
We'll see
Don't be pissing down our backs and telling us it's raining.
I can't take any credit sadly, except perhaps for unleashing Prague on the unsuspecting world (again)...
And I am not connected to the club hierarchy. As I said, congratulations on your success!
I'm just not sure you will like what will happen as a result of it. As it may not exactly be what you may have in mind at all.
Remember the word ...Transparency.
...... to cover refurbs/rebuilds every 20 or so years as well ?