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.
So the stadium will require no work, maintenance or more conversions for 99 years. Right...
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.
Lion's share? No one told me Millwall were sharing as well.
So you still seriously think Karren Brady would be coming on here hiding behind a fake account of a German West Ham fan ? And you still seriously think your marking this deal public will in any shape or form be beneficial to the taxpayer ? Again: Mistakes have been made a plenty. This could prove to be another one costing the taxpayer even more money in the process. Which should be a concern to you if you really have the taxpayers' interests at heart. Just don't be too disappointed if the terms of the deal will stay as they are even after publication. The European Commission has seen the deal and saw nothing wrong in terms of state aid. But at least we will soon all know the numbers and details. Which may only end up making you all feel even more jealous and bitter. And should the terms of the deal be renegotiated, have you already decided whether Richard Hunt (Charlton) or Mat Roper (Orient) will be sitting on the negotiating table on behalf of the taxpayer to determine what a fair deal should look like ?
"But the commissioner ruled that neither the LLDC nor West Ham had been able to demonstrate how the information could be exploited by competitors or how its release would place them at a commercial disadvantage."
I don't think I have anything else to say on the matter so I'll just say 'over and out'... and then I'll be back ten times in the next couple of hours.
So you still seriously think Karren Brady would be coming on here hiding behind a fake account of a German West Ham fan ? And you still seriously think your marking this deal public will in any shape or form be beneficial to the taxpayer ? Again: Mistakes have been made a plenty. This could prove to be another one costing the taxpayer even more money in the process. Which should be a concern to you if you really have the taxpayers' interests at heart. Just don't be too disappointed if the terms of the deal will stay as they are even after publication. The European Commission has seen the deal and saw nothing wrong in terms of state aid. But at least we will soon all know the numbers and details. Which may only end up making you all feel even more jealous and bitter. And should the terms of the deal be renegotiated, have you already decided whether Richard Hunt (Charlton) or Mat Roper (Orient) will be sitting on the negotiating table on behalf of the taxpayer to determine what a fair deal should look like ?
Dear @GermanEastEnder...I have no doubt that you are not Lady Brady. Your knowledge of the English language is far too good!!
I also believe that uncovering this deal will have no detrimental affect to any taxpayers and the release of said information will also not leave us in the proverbial!
The EU can actually ensure that the deal is renegotiated on commercial terms. This means that the taxpayer will not pick up the numerous tabs that WHam seem happy to drop.
If we feel more "jealous and bitter", do you not think that may be because we have finally seen the details of that deal of the century you have been so keen to hide?
As for negotiators, I would be delighted to have you sit opposite Richard & Mat to sort this out.
If disclosure is really no biggie, then why are West Ham responding to today's news the way they have? For West Ham to go on about their secret benevolence and being good for the taxpayer I'd have thought they would love all this news out in the open to shout it from the rooftops. If there is an appeal then there will have to be reasons stated why the appeal is being made, and if that appeal is then lost it makes West Ham and the LDCC look even worse.
So you still seriously think Karren Brady would be coming on here hiding behind a fake account of a German West Ham fan ? And you still seriously think your marking this deal public will in any shape or form be beneficial to the taxpayer ? Again: Mistakes have been made a plenty. This could prove to be another one costing the taxpayer even more money in the process. Which should be a concern to you if you really have the taxpayers' interests at heart. Just don't be too disappointed if the terms of the deal will stay as they are even after publication. The European Commission has seen the deal and saw nothing wrong in terms of state aid. But at least we will soon all know the numbers and details. Which may only end up making you all feel even more jealous and bitter. And should the terms of the deal be renegotiated, have you already decided whether Richard Hunt (Charlton) or Mat Roper (Orient) will be sitting on the negotiating table on behalf of the taxpayer to determine what a fair deal should look like ?
Thing is that what the Information Commissioner has effectively said is that there was no reason to withhold the information in the first place.
A few pages back you were saying it would be a good idea to share the details so everyone can see what a good deal it is. You now seem to be getting worried at the prospect.
No-one will lose by the information being out there, if it is as everyone had said it is. If they've lied, well that would be a darned tangled web they've woven, no?
The EC made a technical judgement based on what the LLDC presented. It couldn't be challenged by the complainant because, well, the LLDC kept all the facts secret. As I understand it, the door wasn't slammed shut by the EC. If only the LLDC had been up front and sought an excemption, eh...
So you still seriously think Karren Brady would be coming on here hiding behind a fake account of a German West Ham fan ? And you still seriously think your marking this deal public will in any shape or form be beneficial to the taxpayer ? Again: Mistakes have been made a plenty. This could prove to be another one costing the taxpayer even more money in the process. Which should be a concern to you if you really have the taxpayers' interests at heart. Just don't be too disappointed if the terms of the deal will stay as they are even after publication. The European Commission has seen the deal and saw nothing wrong in terms of state aid. But at least we will soon all know the numbers and details. Which may only end up making you all feel even more jealous and bitter. And should the terms of the deal be renegotiated, have you already decided whether Richard Hunt (Charlton) or Mat Roper (Orient) will be sitting on the negotiating table on behalf of the taxpayer to determine what a fair deal should look like ?
Thing is that what the Information Commissioner has effectively said is that there was no reason to withhold the information in the first place.
A few pages back you were saying it would be a good idea to share the details so everyone can see what a good deal it is. You now seem to be getting worried at the prospect.
No-one will lose by the information being out there, if it is as everyone had said it is. If they've lied, well that would be a darned tangled web they've woven, no?
The EC made a technical judgement based on what the LLDC presented. It couldn't be challenged by the complainant because, well, the LLDC kept all the facts secret. As I understand it, the door wasn't slammed shut by the EC. If only the LLDC had been up front and sought an excemption, eh...
Spot on. Our teutonic friend has posted many times that he would be very comfortable with the deal being out in the open because he does not believe anything untoward has occured and the public got a good deal out of it, (but he drew the line at signing the petition, which is fair enough). But now the deal DOES look likely to be published, those involved are suddenly the bogeymen, wasting taxpayers money now and in the future and throws in the jealousy motive in order to dismiss the legitimate views of anyone unhappy with both the known facts about the deal and the shroud of secrecy surrounding it.
Nobody, on here or anywhere else I've seen, has a problem with the Hammers or anyone else playing at the OS but plenty of us have a problem with paying for them to do so. Why is that such a difficult concept to grasp?
Surprised that some West ham fans come on here, still trying to support the idea of non disclosure....... as one of your own, stated one of your own websites.. 'Yes, I think everyone by now is sick to death about the fogginess of this deal and full transparency should be allowed, if they cant find a stadium sponsor in time, then so be it." Perhaps the likes of the 'German one' should take a step back, and have a good hard think. Who knows with the political party conference coming up, politicians get very nervous about this time of the year, and shall we say are more open to persuasion to lean on the LLDC, and it's board to disclose the deal. As the BBC states this morning: 'The deal must be made public'. Of course they can appeal....... but then a public enquiry surely would be the next step. We shall see.......
There's no surprise that the German one would be squirming, Alan 'Prague' Turing and the CAST Bletchley Boys have just taken a massive leap to cracking the Enigma code.
Why are you still talking GEE? You have already told several times that you were leaving yet you are still here.
Hoping we will all give in under the strength of his arguments ... unfortunately he keeps ignoring the transparency issue.
Looking forward to hearing the official statement from West Ham - presumably they will support the release of the contract details as it makes no difference to them ... or does it?
This gets you access to The Mayor's Question Time this morning at 10am.
So what's happened there then? Couldn't watch until about 10.25 - Boris on buses. then a question on taxis, then rowdy heckling from the public gallery. Now the meeting has been adjourned and the public cleared - has the OS even been discussed yet?! A protest by taxi drivers, apparently - bet a load of them are Hammers!!
Comments
castrust.org
Again: Mistakes have been made a plenty. This could prove to be another one costing the taxpayer even more money in the process. Which should be a concern to you if you really have the taxpayers' interests at heart.
Just don't be too disappointed if the terms of the deal will stay as they are even after publication.
The European Commission has seen the deal and saw nothing wrong in terms of state aid.
But at least we will soon all know the numbers and details. Which may only end up making you all feel even more jealous and bitter.
And should the terms of the deal be renegotiated, have you already decided whether Richard Hunt (Charlton) or Mat Roper (Orient) will be sitting on the negotiating table on behalf of the taxpayer to determine what a fair deal should look like ?
That is all.
I also believe that uncovering this deal will have no detrimental affect to any taxpayers and the release of said information will also not leave us in the proverbial!
The EU can actually ensure that the deal is renegotiated on commercial terms. This means that the taxpayer will not pick up the numerous tabs that WHam seem happy to drop.
If we feel more "jealous and bitter", do you not think that may be because we have finally seen the details of that deal of the century you have been so keen to hide?
As for negotiators, I would be delighted to have you sit opposite Richard & Mat to sort this out.
For West Ham to go on about their secret benevolence and being good for the taxpayer I'd have thought they would love all this news out in the open to shout it from the rooftops.
If there is an appeal then there will have to be reasons stated why the appeal is being made, and if that appeal is then lost it makes West Ham and the LDCC look even worse.
Particular credit to Pragueaddick.
A few pages back you were saying it would be a good idea to share the details so everyone can see what a good deal it is. You now seem to be getting worried at the prospect.
No-one will lose by the information being out there, if it is as everyone had said it is. If they've lied, well that would be a darned tangled web they've woven, no?
The EC made a technical judgement based on what the LLDC presented. It couldn't be challenged by the complainant because, well, the LLDC kept all the facts secret. As I understand it, the door wasn't slammed shut by the EC. If only the LLDC had been up front and sought an excemption, eh...
Nobody, on here or anywhere else I've seen, has a problem with the Hammers or anyone else playing at the OS but plenty of us have a problem with paying for them to do so. Why is that such a difficult concept to grasp?
'Yes, I think everyone by now is sick to death about the fogginess of this deal and full transparency should be allowed, if they cant find a stadium sponsor in time, then so be it."
Perhaps the likes of the 'German one' should take a step back, and have a good hard think. Who knows with the political party conference coming up, politicians get very nervous about this time of the year, and shall we say are more open to persuasion to lean on the LLDC, and it's board to disclose the deal.
As the BBC states this morning: 'The deal must be made public'. Of course they can appeal....... but then a public enquiry surely would be the next step. We shall see.......
You have already told several times that you were leaving yet you are still here.
Looking forward to hearing the official statement from West Ham - presumably they will support the release of the contract details as it makes no difference to them ... or does it?
Not exactly a prime example of democracy in action, is it?